•      M    1*'.  'i". 


O    ~.-4-(s>— < 


-^y-OF 


r 


m^y^^^: 


r,1  OF.  P^ 


THE  AUTHORSHIP 
OF  THE  BOOK  OF 
DEUTERONOMY 

WITH  ITS  BEARINGS  ON  THE  HIGHER 
CRITICISM   OF  THE   PENTATEUCH 


...  BY,.. 

JOHN  WILLIAM  McGARVEY,  LL.  D., 

President  of  the  College  of  the  Bible,  Lexington,  Ky. ;  Professor  of 
Sacred  History  and  Christian  Evidences  in  same  >  Author  of 
"Text  and  Canon  of  the  New  Testament;"  "Credi- 
bility and  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament ; " 
"  Lands  of  the  Bible ; "  and  Commentaries  on 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Acts  of  Apostles. 


CINCINNATI,  O. 

THE  STANDARD  PUBLISHING  CO., 

216-220  East  Ninth  Street. 


Copyright,  1903,    by 
The  Standard  Publishing  Co. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  1.  Apology  for  Writing iii. 

§2.  Higher   Criticism   Defined iii. 

§3.  The  Analytical  Theory  of  the  Pentateuch vii. 

§4.  The  Suspicious  Source  of  This  Theory xv. 

§5.  The  Unbelieving  Tendency  of  It xvii. 

§6.  The  Relation  of  Deuteronomy  to  This  Theory xix. 

§7.  The  Plan  of  This  Work xx. 

§8.  Authorities  and  Abbreviations xxi. 

PART  FIRST. 

evidences   for   the  late   date  assigned   to   DEUTERONOMY. 

§1.  From  the  Account  of  the  Book  Found  by  Hilkiah 1 

§2.  From  Alleged  Conflicts  with  Previous  Legislation 28 

§3.  From  the  Early  Disregard  of  a  Central  Sanctuary 34 

§4.  From  the  Alleged  Absence  of  the  Aaronic  Priesthood 49 

§5.  From  Alleged  Contradictions 54 

1.  As  to  the  Financial  Condition  of  the  Levites 55 

2.  As  to  Tithes 63 

3.  As  to  the  Priest's  Portion  of  the  Peace-offering 67 

4.  As  to  the  Sacrifices  of  the  Passover 68 

5.  As  to  Eating  that  Which  Died  of  Itself 69 

6.  As  to  Hebrew  Bondservants 71 

7.  As  to  the   Decalogue 78 

8.  As  to  Acts  of  Moses  at  Mount  Sinai 83 

9.  As  to  the  Mission  of  the  Twelve  Spies 88 

10.  As  to  the  Time  Spent  at  Kadesh 91 

11.  As  to  When  the  Levites  were  Consecrated 94 

12.  As  to  the  Sentence  on  Moses 95 

13.  As  to  the  Asylum  for  the  Manslayer 97 

14.  As  to  the  Year  of  Release 99 

15.  As  to  Eating  the  Firstlings 100 

16.  As  to  a  Fragment  of  the  Wilderness  Itinerary 104 

§6.  Internal  Evidence  for  the  Late  Date 106 

1.  From   the   Expression,    "Beyond    Jordan" 106 

2.  From  Passages  Implying  Dates  Long  After  the  Events 112 

3.  From   Differences   Between   Laws 115 

4.  The  Date  of  the  Blessing  and  Cursing,  the  Song  of  Moses,  and 

His  Blessing  of  the  Tribes 125 

§7.  Evidences  for  the  Late  Date  in  the  Historical  Books 137 

1.  Joshua  and  Chronicles  Set  Aside 137 


2  TABLE  OF   CONTENTS. 

2.  The  Confession  of  Nehemiah  and  the  Levites 139 

3.  Religion  in  the  Time  of  the  Judges 141 

4.  The  Service  at  Shiloh 144 

5.  Offerings  Made  by  Saul  and  David > 152 

6.  The   Priesthood   of   David's   Sons 153 

7.  Solomon's   Career    155 

8.  Foreign  Guards  in  the  Sanctuary 160 

9.  The  Toleration  of  High  Places 165 

§8.  Evidences  from  the  Early  Prophets 168 

1.  From   Elijah   and   Elisha 169 

2.  From  the  Prophet  Amos 171 

3.  From  the  Prophet  Hosea 175 

4.  From  the  Book  of  Isaiah 180 

5.  From  a  Passage  in  Micah 182 

6.  From  the  Prophet  Jeremiah 184 

§9.  Evidence  from   Style 190 

PART   SECOND. 

evidences  for  the  mosaic  authorship. 

§1.  Internal  Evidence   195 

1.  From  the  Title  of  the  Book W5 

2.  From  the  Preface  to  the  Second  Discourse 197 

3.  From  Directions  as  to  the  Ceremony  at  Mt.  Ebal 197 

4.  From  the  Preface  to  the  Covenant 198 

5.  From  Assertions  About  the  Writing 198 

6.  From  the  Preface  to  the  Song  and  to  the  Blessing 199 

§2.  Indirect  Testimony  of  the  Author 200 

1.  Constant  Allusions  to  Entering  Canaan  as  Yet  Future 202 

§3.  Incidental  Evidence 202 

1.  The  Decree  Against  Amalek 202 

2.  The  Order  to  Exterminate  the  Canaanites 203 

3.  The  Order  Respecting  Ammon,  Moab  and  Edom 204 

4.  The  Predictions  in  the  Book 205 

§4.  The  Question  of  Fraud 209 

1.  The  Charge  Preferred 209 

2.  The  Charge  Admitted 210 

3.  The  Charge  Denied 212 

§5.  Evidence  in  the  Book  of  Joshua 218 

1.  Jehovah's  Charge  to  Joshua 218 

2.  The  Case  of  the  Altar  Ed 220 

3.  The  Devoted  in  Jericho 223 

4.  The  Altar  and  Reading  at  Mt.  Ebal 225 

5.  The  Doom  of  the  Gibeonites 226 

6.  The  Cities  of  Refuge 227 


TABLE   OF  CONTENTS  3 

7.  The  Levitical  Cities , , .  228 

S(j.  Evidence  in  the  Book  of  Judges 229 

1.  The  Angel  at  Bochim 229 

2.  The    Nazirite    Vow 230 

3.  Peace-offerings    232 

4.  Micah's    Levite    Priest 233 

§7.  In  the  Books  of  Samuel 236 

1.  The  Structure  at  Shiloh 236 

2.  The  Contents  of  the  Structure  at  Shiloh 237 

3.  The  Existence  of  the  Tabernacle  Denied 239 

4.  The  Ritual  Observed  at  Shiloh 242 

§8.  In  the  Books  of  Kings 244 

1.  Solomon's  Temple 244 

2.  The  Service  at  the  Temple 246 

3.  The  Exclusiveness  of  the  Temple  Service 247 

4.  The  Toleration  of  High  Places 248 

5.  Hezekiah's  Attack  on  the  High  Places 249 

6.  The  Testimony  Given  to  Joash 251 

7.  Sparing  the  Children  of  Murderers 252 

§9.  In  the  Books  of  the  Early  Prophets 253 

1.  In  the  Book  of  Amos 253 

(1)  His  Opening  Cry 253 

(2)  What  He  Meant  by  the  Law 254 

(3)  His  Knowledge  of  the  Levitical  Law 255 

2.  Hosea    256 

3.  Isaiah    256 

(1)  An  Allusion  to  Deut.  xviii.  10-12 256 

(2)  An  Allusion  to  Deut.  xviii.  19,  20 257 

(3)  The  Law,  the  Ordinance,  and  the  Covenant 258 

(4)  Restricted  Worship 259 

( 5 )  The  Commandment  of  Men 261 

(6)  Sacrifices   Exalted    261 

(7)  Magnifying  the  Law 262 

( 8 )  Neglect  of  Sacrifices  Rebuked 262 

(9)  Blessedness  of  Future  Sacrifices 262 

§10.  The  Testimony  of  Jesus 264 

1.  Positions  of  the  Parties  on  This  Testimony 264 

2.  Did  Jesus  Know? 266 

3.  Did  Jesus  Affirm? 269 

4.  The  New  Critics  on  This  Testimony 281 

5.  Did  the  Apostles  Affirm? 294 

§11.  Conclusion    296 

Index    299 

Index  II. — Scripture  References 301 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  I)EUTER0:N'0MY. 


INTRODUCTION". 

§1.  Apology  i'ob  Wkitixg. 

If  an  apology  were  needed  for  calling  in  question  the  con- 
clusion of  those  scholars  who  deny  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  Book  of  Deuteronoiuy,  it  is  furnished  hy  these  scholar> 
themselves.  They  constantly  insist  that  men  of  thought  should 
hold  their  most  cherished  convictions  subject  to  revision.  They 
denoa.ince  as  unreasoning  traditionalists  those  who,  rejecting 
further  investigation,  cling  tenaciously  to  old  beliefs.  They 
are  the  last  men,  therefore,  w'ho  should  object  to  any  fresh  re-ex- 
amination of  their  oa\ti  conclusions.  They  wx>uld  thus  be  imi- 
tating those  whose  unwilliiigness  to  hear  them  excites  their  dis- 
pleasure. In  no'  conclusion  are  these  scholars  more  confident 
than  in  the  one  just  mentioned ;  and  if  I  shall  appear  to  them 
exceedingly  rash  in  jHibiishing  at  this  late  date  an  attiempt  to 
show  that  it  is  erroneoiis,  they  are  still  bound  by  their  own 
principles  not  to  condemn  me  Avitho'Ut  a  hearing.  If  I  shall  not 
advance  anything  new,  I  may  at  least  place  old  arguments  and 
evidences  in  a  f oiin  somewhat  new ;  and  I  may  be  able  t-o  point 
cut  some  defects  in  their  work  that  have  hitherto  escaj^ed  tlieir 
notice.  I  have  a  right,  therefore,  to  expect  among  the  most  in- 
terested and  appreciative  of  my  readers  those  whose  opinions 
I  am  constrained  to  combat. — provided  only  that  my  ^^x>rk  shall 
prove  A^T)rthy  the  attention  of  serious  men.  I  did  not  enter 
upon  it  hastily,  but  after  an  earnest  study  of  the  whole  field  of 
controversy  for  many  years. 

§2.  Higher  Criticism  Defined. 

The  process  by  which  the  scholai's  referi-ed  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding  section  have  reached   their  conclusions,    is   commonly 

styled    The    Higher    Criticism.     This    title    distinguishes    it 

m 


iv  INTRODUCTION. 

from  "Textual  Criticism,"  or  tlie  discovery  and  corroctioai  of 
clerical  errors  in  the  original  text.  Strictly  defined,  higher 
criticism  is  the  art  of  ascertaining  the  authorship,  date,  credibil- 
ity and  literary  characteristics  of  wTitten  documents.-"^  It  is  a 
h^gitimate  ar:,  and  it  has  been  employed  by  Biblical  scholars 
ever  since  tJie  need  of  such  investigations  began  to  be  realized. 
Only,  however,  ^vithin  the  last  hundred  years  has  it  borne  thi.i 
title.-  Previously  both  the  textual  and  the  higher  criticism 
Avere  known  under  the  common  title,  "Biblical  Criticism."  It 
scarcely  needs  to  be  added  that  the  exclusive  use  of  the  title 
Higher  Criticism  for  that  application  of  it  which  seeks  to 
revolutionize  established  beliefs  in  reference  to  the  Bible,  is 
erroneous:  as  is  also  the  tacit  claim  of  some  advocates  of  these 
revolutionary  efforts  to  the  exclusive  title  of  higher  critics.^ 
All  confusion  in  the  use  of  these  tierms  will  be  avoided  if  the 
c'.efinition  just  given  is  kept  in  mind. 

This  definition  will  be  better  understood  if  we  add  to  it 
a  statement  of  the  method  in  -which  the  inquiries  of  the  art  are 
properly  conducted.  This  method  is  well  defined  by  Prof.  W. 
Kobortson  Smith  in  these  words:  "The  ordinary  laws  of  evi- 
dence and  good  sense  must  be  our  guides.  For  the  transmission 
of  the  Bible  is  not  due  to  a  continued  miracle,  but  to  a  watch- 
ful Provideaice  ruling  the  ordinary  means  by  ^v'hich  all  ancient 
books  have  been  handed  do\\Ti.      And    finally,    when    we   have 

'  It  is  defined  by  Prof.  W.  H.  Green  in  these  words:  "Properly 
speaking,  it  is  an  inquiry  into  the  origin  and  character  of  the  writings 
to  which  it  is  applied.  It  seeks  to  ascertain  by  all  suitable  means 
the  authors  by  whom,  the  time  at  which,  the  circumstances  under 
which,  and  the  design  with  which  they  were  produced"  (Higher 
Crit.  of  Pent.,  Preface,  v.).  He  omits  credibility,  and  the  literary 
characteristics. 

■  Johann  Gotfried  Eichhorn,  author  of  a  very  learned  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament,  was  the  first  to  use  the  new  title,  abou; 
the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century.  He  accepted  the  analytical 
theory  of  the  Pentateuch,  so  far  as  it  had  been  elaborated,  but,  lik" 
Jean  Astruc,  who  wrote  a  few  years  earlier,  and  who  is  usually  cred- 
ited with  first  propounding  that  theory,  he  held  to  the  Mosaic  au 
thorship. 

'AV.  L.  Baxter  says  of  these:  "Their  more  proper  designation 
would  be,  Imaginationist  Critics:  they  are  higher  than  others,  solelj' 
through  building  their  critical  castles  in  the  air,  instead  of  on  terra 
firma"   (Sanctuary  and  Sacrifice:  A  Reply  to  Wellhausen,  viii.). 


INTRODUCTION.  v 

"worked  our  way  back  tlirougli  tlic  loiii>'  conturieti  wLicli  scparaU; 
lis  from  the  age  of  Revelation,  we  must,  as  wc  lun-c  already 
seem,  studj-  each  writing  and  make  it  speak  foi'  itself  on  the 
common  principles  of  sound  exegesis"  {0.  T.,  18).  In  otlie*.* 
Vv'ords,  tiie  method  is  to  employ  the  laws  of  evidence  by  which 
other  questions  of  fact  are  determined,  to  do  this  with  "good 
sense,"  and,  wlien  the  meaning  of  the  text  is  to  be  settled,  to 
interpret  it  "on  the  common  principles  of  sound  exegesis." 
When  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs  says,  "The  higher  criticism  is  exact 
and  thorough  in  its  methods"  (Bih.  Study,  104),  he  speaks 
ti-uly  of  these  methods  when  properly  defined  and  applied ;  but 
it  is  unfortunately  true  that  the  most  exact  and  thoroaigh 
methods  may,  in  unskillful  hands,  or  in  the  hands  of  men  with 
sinister  designs,  be  employed  with  disastrous  results.  Any 
metJiod  of  procedure  whicli  proposes  to  apply  the  laws  of  evi- 
dence, may,  by  misapplication  of  tbose  laws,  lead  to  erroaieoius 
and  unjust  decisions.  Our  courts  of  justice  bear  constant  wit- 
ness to  this  fact-  Ajiy  procedure  in  which  "good  sense,"  as 
Professor  Smitli  expresses  it,  is  to  be  our  guide,  may,  by  the 
lack  of  good  sense  on  our  part,  guide  us  astray.  Common  sense 
is  a  very  uncommon  commodity,  and  not  less  so  among  men  of 
great  learning  than  among  their  less  fortunate  fellows.  .Vnd 
as  to  "the  principles  of  sound  exegesis,"  the  scarcity  of  the 
scholars  who  can  steadily  command  and  employ  these  is  start- 
jingly  attested  by  the  pages  of  countless  commentaries  on  the 
various  books  of  the  Bible. 

Prom  these  remarks  it  naturally  foUows  that  higher  crit- 
icism, howe^'er  correct  the  principles  by  which  it  seeks  to  be 
guided,  is,  in  practice,  an  extremely  variable  quantity — so  va- 
riable as  to  include  the  writings  of  extreme  rationalists  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  most  conservative  of  Biblical  scholars  on  the 
other.  Froan  these  premises  there  springs  ag'ain  tJie  inference 
that  thoi&e  who  have  adopted  the  conclusions  of  certain  critics 
should  not  be  so  confident  of  their  correctness  as  to  practically 
assume  their  infallibility.  We  hear  much  of  "assured  results," 
but  there  are  none  so  assured  as  to  be  exempt  from  reaasion. 
The  real  issue  between  the  t-wo  great  parties  to  the  criticism  of 


vi  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Pentateuch  lies  here.  It  is  the  question,  which  of  tJie  two 
have  employed  aright,  and  Jo  employ  aright,  the  laws  of  evi- 
dence, the  maxims  of  common  sense,  and  the  principles  of  a 
sound  exegesis. 

By  what  title  these  two  parties  should  be  distinguished,  is 
as  yet  an  unsettled  question.  As  we  have  stated  above,  the  party 
\^ho  favor  the  analysis  have  usually  styled  tliemselves  critics, 
and  their  opponents  traditionalists ;  but  this  is  manifestly  im- 
just  to  the  latter;  for  while  there  are  traditionalists  on  both 
sides — that  is,  men  who  accept  what  has  been  taught  by  their 
predecessors  without  investigation  on  their  O'Wn  part — yet  it 
can  not  be  denied  that  the  leaders  oif  this  party  have  been  as 
independent  and  as  scholarly  in  their  investigations  as  their 
opponents — Thomas  Hartwell  Home  not  less  so  than  S.  R. 
Driver.  Again,  the  analytical  party  have  styled  thedr  system 
modern  and  scientific,  whereas  the  system  which  opposes  it  is 
equally  modem  in  its  argumentation,  and  whether  it  is  less  sci- 
entific or  not  is  the  question  in  dispute:  Prof.  James  Robertson, 
in  his  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  employed  the  titles  "Biblical" 
and  "Antibiblical ;"  but  the  moire  conservative  school  on  the 
other  side  claim  to  be  equally  Biblical,  in  that  they  claim  to  have 
discovered  the  real  significance  of  the  Bible.  Professor  Briggs 
has  employed,  in  his  moire  recent  writings,  the  titles  "Critical" 
and  "Antieritical ;"  but  this  is  to  assimie  that  his  party  alone 
is  critical.  If  we  had,  on  the  analytical  side,  only  the  unbeliev- 
ing originators  of  the  system,  the^  difficulty  would  disappear, 
and  the  distinction  of  rationalistic,  or  unbelieving,  and  believing 
criticism  would  be  appropriate  and  exact;  but  the  difficulty  is 
to  find  distinguialiing  terms  which  will  include  on  that  side 
both  the  radical  and  the  evangelical  wings  of  which  it  is  com- 
posed. On  the  whole,  it  appears  to  the  present  author  that,  the 
distinction  is  meet  fairly  preserved  by  the  terms  destmctive 
and  conservative.  By  common  consent  the  unbelieving  critics 
are  styWl  destmctive,  seeing  that  they  would  destroy  the  whole 
superstmcture  of  Biblical  faith.  But  the  so-called  evangelical 
wing  seek  to  destroy  belief  in  the  principal  part  of  Old  Testa- 
ment history  as  it  has  come  do^vn  to  us,  and  consequently  their 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

criticism  is  also  destructive  to  a  large  extent.  Tlies©  two  dis- 
t.'nguishing  terms  are  for  tlie&e  reasons  employed  in  tbe  body 
of  this  work. 

§3.  The  Analytical  Theory  of  the  Pentateuch. 

It  is  with  the  applioation  of  higher  criticism  to  tihe  Book 
of  Deuteronomy  that  we  are  especially  conoemed.  in  this  work. 
As  a  result  of  the  labors  of  a  century  on  the  part  of  a  succeission 
of  writers,  mostly  German  rationalists,  a  theory  of  th^e  origin 
and  structure  of  the  Pentateucli  has  been  evolved  which  meets 
with  the  general  approval  of  those,  who  deny  that  Moses  was 
its  author."*  This  theory  is  styled  the  anal.)i:ical  theory,  be- 
cause of  the  peculiar  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  which,  it  in- 
volves. The  authorsh.ip  and  date  of  Deuteronomy  is  one  of  the 
subjects  involved  in  this  analysis,  and  this  renders  it  important 
tc  present  here  a  brief  outline  of  tihe  theory  to  which,  easy  ref- 
erence may  be  had  in  reading  the  following  pages. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  this  theory  that  tlie  Book 
of  Deuteronomy,  or  at  least  the  legislative  portion  of  it  (chap- 
ters xii.-xxvi.),  was  the  first  book  of  tbe  Pentateuch  tO'  come 
into  existence.  It  was  first  brought  into  public  notice  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  the  redgn  of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah,  and  It 
alone  was  the  book  found  by  the  high  priest  Hilkiah,  when  he 
was  cleansing  the  temple,  as  described  in  the  twenty-second 
chapter  of  II.  Kings.  This  was  in  the  year  621  B.  C,  or  about 
eight  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Moses.^  The  book  had 
heeii  written  but  a  sliort  time  when  it  was  thus  found.  Critics 
vary  in  judgment  as  to  the  exact  timei,  but  all  agree  that  it  had 
been  composed  within  the  previous  seventy-five  years.     These 


*  For  a  brief  historical  sketch  of  this  theory,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  Wellhausen's  article,  "Pentateuch,"  in  Encyc.  Brit. ;  to  Bis- 
sell's  Origin  and  Structure  of  the  Pentateuch,  42-83;  or  to  either  of 
two  hand-books,  Radical  Criticism,  by  Prof.  Francis  R.  Beattie,  of  the 
Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary,  Louisville,  Ky.;  and  The  Elements 
of  Higher  Criticism,  by  Prof.  A.  C.  Zenos,  of  McCormick  Theological 
Seminary,  Chicago. 

'  This  opinion  was  first  suggested  by  De  Wette  in  the  year  1817. 
(Wellhansen.  Encyc.  Brit.;  Art.  "Pentateuch.") 


vtii  iNTRODUCTION. 

years  wen-e  occupied  by  the  idoiatimis  reigns  of  Manassdi  and 
Amon,  and  the  tirsit  eighteen  years  of  Joeiah. 

The  more  radical  critics  hold  that  no  writing  at  all  came 
down  from  the  time  of  Moses,  imless  it  was  thi©  Decalogne  in 
a  much  briefeir  form  than  we  now  have  it^  The  more  conserva- 
tive class  tiiink  that  the  document  described  in  Ex.  xxiv.  1-11 
as  being  written  by  Moses,  consiecrated  by  blood,  and  calle<^l 
"The  Book  of  the  Covenant,"  was  really  written  by  Moses.  Ii 
contained  the  legislation  found  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  With  these 
exceptions,  all  who  have  accepted  the  analytical  theory  agreo 
that  ]\roses  wrote  no  part,  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  conception 
of  Moses  as  an  author  and  lawgiver,  which  has  prevailed  among 
the  Jews  and  Christians  alike  for  so  many  oeaituries,  is  a  delu- 
sion which  has  been  dispelled  by  the  critical  investigations  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

Wliile  all  this  is  held  as  to  Moses,  it  is  not  denied  that 
some  of  tlie  writing  which  is  now  found  in  the  Pentateuch  came 
into  existence  before  the  date  of  Deuteronomy.  In  the  ninth 
century  B.  C,  about  the  time  of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  or  possibly 
in  the  eighth,  about  the  time  of  Amos  and  Ho'Sea  (the  exact 
time  is  unsettled),  there  came  into  existence  two  historical  docu- 
ments which  contributed  to  the  final  formation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. One  of  these  was  written  in  the  northern  kingdom,  as 
appears  from  its  more  frequent  references  to  perso^ns  and  plax^es 
among  the  ten  tribes.  It  was  an  attempt  at  a  histo^r^^  of  early 
times,  beginning  with  creation  and  ending  with  the  death  of 
Joshua^  It  contained  such  traditions  of  those  times  as  had  come 
down  orally  to  the  time  of  its  author,  and  possibly  some  written 
document,  of  an  earlier  period.  Its  autilior  habitually  used  the 
Hebrew  name  Elohim  for  God,  on  account  of  which  he  is  known 
as  the  Elohistic  writer,  and  is  i-eferi-ed  to  briefly  in  critical 
writing  as  E.  About  the  same  time,  some  think  earlier  and 
some  think  later,   a   similar,   but   independent   document   ap- 


'  Thus  Kuenen  says:  "It  need  not  be  repeated  here  that  Moses 
bequeathed  no  book  of  the  law  to  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Certainly  noth- 
ing more  was  committed  to  writing  by  him  or  in  his  time  than  the 
'ten  words'  in  their  original  form"  (The  Religion  of  Israel,  II.  7). 


INTRODUCTION.  ix 

peared  in  tlie  kingdom  of  Judah,  covering  tJie  same  period  of 
time,  containing  tlie  stories  afloat  among  the  old  people  of  the 
soutihern  kingdom,  and  written  by  an  author  who  uniformly 
called  God  Jehovah.  IIo  is  called  the  Jehovistic  writer,  or 
briefly,  J.  The  stories  in  the  two  were  to  some  extent  tlie  same, 
with  variations  resulting  from  oral  transmission,  but  each  con- 
tained some  stories  not  found  in  the  other.  It  is  not.  pretemded 
that  we  have  any  historical  account  of  eitlliei"  of  these  books,  or 
that  any  ancient  writer,  either  Biblical  or  secular,  makes  any 
allusion  to  their  existence.  It  is  only  claimed  that  the  fact  of 
their  existence  is  traceable  in  portions  of  our  Pentateuch  that 
^vere  copied  from  them. 

At  a  still  later  pei'iod,  but  how  late  no  on©  pretends  to  say, 
except  that  it  was  earlier  than  the  Meriting  of  Deuteronomy,  a 
third  writer  took  tliese  two  books  of  E  and  J  m  hand,  and 
combined  them  into  one,  by  copying  first  from  one  and  then 
from  tJie  other,  as  he  thought  best,  though  sometimes,  when  he 
was  doubtful  as  to  which  of  tw^o  stories  was  to  be  preferred, 
copying  both.  Occasionally  he  added  sometihing  of  his  own. 
He  is  called  a  redactor,  the  German  term  for  editor,  and  for  the 
sake  of  brevity  is  usually  referred  to  as  R.  The  resulting  docu- 
ment is  called  JE,  and  it  is  supposed  that,  as  a  natural  i-esult 
of  the  compilation,  the  two  older  documents  passed  out  of  use, 
and  soon  perished.  The  docimient  JE  was  therefore  th^e  only 
historical  book  in  existence  among  the  Israelites  previous  to  the 
date*  of  Deuteronomy. 

The  principal  reason  for  holding  that  the  Book  of  Deu- 
teronomy came  into  e:sistence  as  above  described,  and  that  none 
of  the  other  three  books  of  law^  existed  earlier,  is  the  rea^olu- 
tion  in  worship  effected  by  King  Josiah  under  tlie  influence  of 
this  book.  It  is  alleged  that  previous  to  Hilkiah's  discover}' 
every  man  w\as  at  liberty  to  build  an  altar  and  offer  sacrifices 
Avhere  he  saw  fit,  and  tliat  all  tlie  sacrificial  altars  that  were 
erected,  as  Jeremiah  expresses  it,  "on  every  high  hill  and  un- 
der every  gi'een  tree,''  were  entirely  legitimate  Avhen  the  wor- 
ship was  rendered  to  Jehovah.  Many  of  these  places  of  wor- 
ship, however,  had  been  consecrated  by  the  Canaanites  to  the 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

worship  of  Baal  and  otlier  deities,  and  tliS'  Israelites  were  con- 
stantly enticed  by  tlie^  associations  of  place,  and  otlieir  considei'a- 
tioiis,  to  fall  into  idolatry.  It  theirefore  occurred  to  tlie  writer 
or  writers  of  Deuteronomy  to  compose  a  book  in  the  name  of 
Moses  which  would  pronounce  worship  at  all  such  places  unlaw- 
ful, and  would  concentrate  all  the  sacrifices  at  Uie  altar  in  front 
of  tlie  temple  in  Jerusalem.  In  this  way  idolatry  -would  be  sup- 
pressed, and  the  priestiliood  of  the  central  sanotuary  would  be 
exalted  and  enriched.  The  fact  that  King  Josiah,  believing 
the  book  to  be  from  Moses,  enforced  this  regulation,  proves  by 
its  success  the  wisdom  of  this  device. 

Thus  far,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  neither  of  the  law-books, 
Exodus,  Leviticus  or  N'umbers,  had  been  written ;  but  between 
the  time  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  beginning  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  a  priestly  law  was  written  containing  the  regulations 
now  found  in  dhapters  xvii.-xxii.  of  the  Book  of  Leviticus. 
It  is  called  the  law  of  Holiness,  and  it  is  designated  by  the  let- 
ter H.  We  now  see  that  when  Judah  was  led  captive  into  Baby- 
lon, they  had  in  hand  the  legal  part  of  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, six  chapters  of  Leviticus,  and  the  historical  book  JE, 
but  no  other  part  of  the  Pentateuch. 

About  the  close  of  the  Babylonian  exile  another  book  was 
written  which  contained  both  history  and  law.  It  covered  his- 
torically the  same  period  of  time  which  had  been  covered  by 
J  and  E,  but  it  introduced  much  new  matter.  The  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  was  now  composed,  the  author  J  having  begun  his 
book  with  the  second  chapter.  Many  other  parts  of  Genesis 
were  also  first  written  by  this  author,  together  with  the  main 
body  of  the  Books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus  and  Numbers.  Ho 
was  a  priest,  and  he  is  referred  to  imder  the  letter  P.  He  WTot(? 
about  one  thousand  years  after  the  death  of  Moses. 

But  the  Pentateuch  was  not  yet  completed.  The  docu- 
ments JE,  D,  H  and  P,  out  of  which  it  was  yet  to  be  compiled, 
existed  separately.  The  task  of  compiling  them  into  one  fell 
tc  the  lot  of  another  redactor  or  editor,  who,  at  or  soon  after 
the  close  of  the  exile,  took  in  hand  the  preceding  books,  and 
compiled  from  them  the  Pentateuch  as  we  now  have;  it,  adding, 


INTRODUCTION.  xi 

however,  here  and  tliea*e,  soine  matter  of  his  own.  This  book 
of  the  law  of  Moses  was  read  to  tlhe  people  by  Ezra,  as  described 
ill  the  eighth  chapter  of  Nelieniiali,  and  this  reading  was  its 
first  publication  to  tJie  world. 

As  was  said  above,  it  is  not  claimed  that  there  is  any  his- 
torical accoimt  of  tliese  various  documents,  or  that  any  ancient 
writing  contains  the  faintest  allusion  to  tiheir  existence.  But  it 
is  claimed  tlliat  tlie  fact  of  their  separate  existence  and  subse- 
quent combination  can  be  demonstrated  by  separating  thjem  now 
according  to  their  several  peculiarities  of  style  and  subject- 
matter.  This  has  been  done,  and  the  several  documents  have 
been  published  in  separate  fonn.  So  exact  is  tlie  process,  th.at 
in  many  instances  a  single  short  sentence,  or  a  clause  of  a  sen- 
tence, is  assigned,  one  part  to  J,  one  tO'  E,  and  anotker  to  P. 
The  reader  will  find  ttis  analysis  set  forth  to  the  eye  in  color:^ 
representing  the  several  sources  of  the  text,  in  Bissell's  Genesi6 
'in  Colors,  and  in  the  various  volumes  of  the  Polychrome  Bible. 
The  several  documents  are  also  printed  separately  in  Docu- 
ments of  the  Hexateuch,  by  W.  E.  Addis ;  and  in  two  works  by 
Prof.  Benjamin  W.  Bacon,  of  Yale,  entitled  Genesis  of  Genesis, 
and  Exodus.  This  analysis  will  not  be  considered  on  its  merits 
iu  the  following  pages,  because  it  bears  only  remotely  on  our 
isubject,  and  also  because  in  a  work  entitled  The  Unity  of  Gene- 
sis, the  last  work  that  came  from  the  prolific  pen  of  the  lamented 
Prof.  William  Henry  Green,  of  Princeton,  the  analytical  theory 
is  thoroughly  exposed  as  contrary  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  To 
argue  the  question  again  would  be  a  work  of  supererogation;  at 
least,  until  some  formal  reply  shall  be  made  to  Professor  Green. 

There  are  certain  important  results  which  attend  the 
theory,  and  constitute  an  essential  part  of  it,  that  are  to  be 
stated  next. 

Should  we  grant  all  that  has  been  thus  far  stated,  and  yet. 
maintain  that  all  of  these  supposed  writers  were  divinely  in- 
spired so  as  to  write  with  historical  reliability,  we  could  still 
maintain  the  authenticity  of  Old  Testament  history.  But  such 
inspiration  is  denied.  Miraculous  aid  of  any  kind  Is  denied 
by  radical  critics,  and  inspiration  that  guards  historical  narra- 


xii  INTRODUCTION. 

tives  from  eiTor  is  deaiied  by  all.  Consequently  the  theory 
throws  a  mist  of  uncertainty  over  the  whole  of  tJie  historical 
writings  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  and  most  positively  discredits 
a  very  large  portion  of  it. 

"We  may  state  first,  as  a  specific  result,  that  the  first  ten 
chapters  of  Genesis  are  altogether  legendary  or  mythical.  The 
first  two- chapters  are  not,  as  they  appear  to  be,  a  history  of  the 
creation  of  the  universe  and  tJie  formation  of  this  eartli  as  an 
abode  for  man;  but  they  are  two  contradictory  accounts,  one 
presenting  the  author  P's  conception,  and  the  other  J's,  while 
both  are  very  far  away  from  describing  the  reality.  The  story 
of  the  fall  is  a  fable,  and  it  falsely  represents  the  change  which 
took  place  in  man.  This  change  was  an  upward  movement,  as 
the  theory  of  evolution  demands.  There  was  no  fall  of  man. 
The  stories  of  Cain  and  Abel  are  equally  imaginary,  and  tliat 
of  the  flood,  though  self -consistent  throughout  as  it  stands,  is 
resolved  into  two  contradictory  accounts  of  some  local  disaster 
in  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates,  O'ne  written  by  J  and  the  other 
by  P.  The  account  of  the  confusion  of  tongues,  and  the  conse- 
quent dispersion  of  tlie  human  race,  is  an  idle  attempt  to  ex- 
plain by  a  miracle  that  which  came  about  in  a  natural  way. 

As  to  the  rest  of  Genesis,  the  stories  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
Jacob  and  Joseph  are  also  unreal  with  the  radical  critics,  w'ho 
in  general  deny  that  any  of  these  men  had  a  real  existence. 
They  are  mythical  heroes,  such  as  were  conjured  up  in  the 
imaginations  of  the  early  heathen  nations  when  trying  to  trace 
their  primitive  history.  Thus  the  whole  of  the  Book  of  Genesis 
passes  away  before  the  mind  of  the  critic,  except  as  its  marvel- 
ous narratives  may  be  used  for  illustrations.  The  more  con- 
sen^ative  critics  retain  the  belief  that  these  patriarchs  had  a 
real  existence,  but  they  hesitate  to  accept  the  details  of  much 
that  is  written  respecting  them.  They  accept  some  and  reject, 
the  rest  according  to  each  man's  individual  judgment. 

With  the  radicals,  the  Israelites  were  never  in  bondage  to 
the  Eg\'ptians,  as  described  in  the  Book  of  Exodus  and  repeated 
so  constantly  in  the  later  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  they 
were  a  desert  tribe-,  and  in  the  course  of  their  wanderings  they 


INTRODUCTION.  xiii 

settled  on  the  border  of  Egypt  and  iiicurrod  Eg^'ptiaii  hostil- 
ity. The  story  of  deliverance  from  the  Egyptians  is  thoi'efore 
wholly  false,  as  is  also  that  of  the  visit  tO'  Mount  Sinai  and  the 
giving  of  the  law.  All  the  miracles  in  the  wildea-netss  are  de- 
nied, and  it  is  claimed  that  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness 
never  had  an  existence,  the  account  of  it  being  an  imaginary 
story  spun  from  the  brain  of  P,  with  Solamcxn's  temple  as 
its  model. 

Tho  conservatives  admit  that  Israel  was  in  bondage,  but 
they  hold  that  the  stories  of  the  ten  plagues  are  exaggerated  ac- 
counts of  natural  events.  The  passage  of  the^  Red  Sea  theij' 
strip  of  all  its  miraculous  incidents,  and  the  law  given  at  Mount 
Sinai  contained  nothing  more  than  the  little  "book  of  the  cove- 
nant" now  foimd  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  The  laws  in  Leviticus  were 
not  given  there  as  is  declared  both  at  the  beginning  and  the 
end  of  that  book,  neither  were  those  w'hioh  are  scattered  through 
the  Book  of  Xumbers  givetn  by  Moses.  As,  to  the  Book  of 
Deuteronom}',  we  have  already  seen  how  its  contents  are  re- 
garded by  all  these  critics,  both  radical  and  oonsei'vativ© ;  for 
there  is  no  material  ditferenoe  of  opinion  among  them  on 
this  matter. 

We  now  see  what  is  made  of  the  Pentateiuch,  if  this  theory 
is  true.  The  question  is  sometimes  raised,  What  difference 
does  it  make  wdiether  Moses  or  some  other  man  wrote  the  Pen- 
tateuch ?  If  this  means  wdiether  Moses  wrote  it,  O'r  some  other 
man  who  lived  at  a  time  to  possess  correct  information,  the  dif- 
ference might  be  immaterial.  But  this  is  not  the  question.  It 
is,  whether  Closes  is  its  autho^r,  or  several  unknown  men  who 
lived  from  seven  hundred  to  one  thousand  years  after  Moses, 
and  who  had  no  means  of  correct  knowledge.  In  other  words, 
the  question  is,  wdiether  it  came  from  a  man  who  was  the  chief 
actor  in  much  the  greater  part,  of  its  events,  and  could  therefore 
give  an  authentic  accoimt  of  them,  or  from  a  set  of  men  re- 
moved many  centuries  from  the  events,  whose  source  of  infor- 
mation was  nothing  better  than  a  hoary  tradition,  and  who  have 
actually  given  us  nothing  that  is  certainly  real  history. 


xiv  INTRODUCTION. 

Another  consequence  wliick  is  a  part  of  the  theory  is  jet 
to  be  mentioned.  It  has  been  observed  by  those  the'  least  fa 
miliar  witli  the  new  critical  literature  that  it  speiaks  no  longer 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  of  the  Hexateuch.  This  is  because  the 
Book  of  Joshua  is  involved  with  the  Pentateuch  in  the  same 
supposition  as  to  dates  and  authorship.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  J  and  E,  the  first  writers,  extended  their  narratives  from 
Adam  to  the  death  of  Joshua.  P  also  did  the  same.  The  Greek 
translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  who  were  the  first  to  divide 
the  Pentateuch  into  separate  books,  and  to  give  them  their 
Greek  names,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Deu- 
teronomy, made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  these  constituted 
one  original  book  of  early  history  and  law,  and  that  the  Book 
of  Joshua  was  a  later  production.  From  this  mistake  origi- 
rated  the  title  "Pentateuch,"  signifying  five  books.  But  the 
critics  have  detected  this  mistake.  They  have  found  that  the 
original  work  in  the  hands  of  Ezra,  called  the  book  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  instead  of  closing  with  Deuteronomy,  extended  to  the 
close  of  what  we  caill  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  that.  Hexateaich 
(a  work  of  six  books),  and  not  Pentateucli,  is  the  correct  title. 
The  Book  of  Joshua  is  witli  them  wholly  unhistorical.  It  false- 
ly represents  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by  the  Israelites.  It  is 
not  true  that  Joshua  invaded  the  land  with  a  great  army,  cross- 
ing the  Jordan  by  a  stupendous  miracle,  and  subduing  the  tribes 
of  Canaan  in  two  decisive  campaigns.  It  is  not  true  that  he 
divided  the  land  among  the  tribes,  as  described  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  book.  All  these  accounts  are  inventions  of  later 
ages.  The  true  account  of  the  invasion  is  that  very  imperfect- 
ly given  in  the  early  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Judges ;  and  this 
is  interpreted  to  mean  that  one  tribe  at  a  time,  or  two  tribes 
acting  together,  invaded  Canaan,  and,  after  many  vicissitudes, 
finally  obtained  lodgment  among  a  people  much  more  civilized 
£ind  enlighteoied  than  themselves. 

The  theory,  then,  if  tnie,  robs  the  first  six  books  of  the 
Bible  of  authenticity,  and  puts  their  several  authors  on  a.  lower 
level  than  that  of  ancient  heathen  historians  by  separating  them 
many  centuries  further  from  the  events  which  they  pretend  to 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

record.  To  tlie  critics  tlieonselves  this  makes  the  Hexateuch 
II  mucli  more  precious  work  tlian  it  was  when  they  gave  it 
credit ;  for  thej  are  never  tired,  at  least  the  "evangelical"  wing, 
of  repeating  the  assertion  of  tihis  increased  preciooisaiess.  How- 
ever difficult  it  is  to  account  for  this,  I  suppose  that  we  must 
credit  tJiem  with  telling  the  truth ;  but  with  the  great  mass  of 
believers  in  Christ  and  the  Bible  the  feeling  must  ever  be  the 
reverse  of  tliis.  They  feel  now,  and  will  forever  feel,  the  utmost 
disgust  for  a  set  of  books  with  the  pretenses  made  in  these,  that 
are  after  all  nothing  more  than  tbese  critics  represent  them 
to  be, 

§4.  The  Suspicious  Sources  of  This  Theory. 

Before  we  consider  the  evidences  for  and  against  this 
theory,  it  is  proper  that  we  note  some  prima-facie  consideo'a- 
tjons  which  cast  upon  it  a  cloud  of  suspicion. 

Thoee  who  have  wrought  it  out  were  unbelievers,  and  were 
moved  in  their  labors  by  hostility  to  the  Bible  and  the  Christian 
religion.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  two  scholars  to  whom, 
above  all  others,  the  present  form  of  the  theory  owes  its  com- 
pletion and  defense,  A.  Kuenen,  now  deceased,  and  Julius  Well- 
hausen,  who  is  still  living.^  Tbey  unhesitatingly  reject  as  in- 
credible  all  accounts  of  supernatural  events,  including  tbose 
connected  with  the  career  of  Christ.  These  statements  are  free- 
ly admitted  by  the  advocates  of  tbe  theory,  and  some  of  them 
strive,  as  best  they  can,  to  ward  off  the  suspicion  thence  aris- 

Mn  the  introduction  to  his  Religion  of  Israel,  Kuenen  says:  "For 
us  the  Israelitish  is  one  of  these  religions  (the  'principal  religions'), 
nothing  less,  but  also  nothing  more"  (p.  5).  "As  soon  as  it  began  to 
be  clear  that  the  testimony  of  Israel's  sacred  books  could  not  stand 
the  test  of  a  searching  inquiry;  as  soon  as  it  appeared  that  they  were 
least  trustworthy  just  in  those  places  where  their  accounts  seemed  to 
afford  the  most  unequivocal  proof  of  the  truth  of  supernaturalism — 
from  that  moment,  especially  in  connection  with  all  the  other  motives 
which  lead  to  the  rejection  of  supernaturalism,  its  fall  was  an  assured 
fact"  (p.  llf.).  "The  representation  of  Israel's  early  history  presented 
to  us  in  the  books  named  after  Moses  and  Joshua,  must  be  rejected  as 
in  its  entirety  impossible.  Prejudice  alone  can  deny  that  the  miracles 
related  in  the  same  writings  must  be  rejected  at  the  same  time" 
(p.  22). 


xvi  INTRODUCTION. 

ing.  W.  Robertson  Sniitli  acknowledges  his  own  indebtedness 
to  these  twx>  scholars  in  the  following  two  sentences:  "The  first 
to  attempt  a  connected  history  of  the  religion  of  Israel  on  the 
premises  of  the  nerwer  criticism  was  Professor  Kuemen,  the 
value  of  whose  writings  is  admitted  by  candid  inquirers  of  every 
school."  "Taken  as  a  whole,  the  wi*itings  of  Wellhausen  are  the 
most  notable  contribution  to  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament since  the  great  work  of  Ewald,  and  almost  every  part  of 
the  present  lectures  owes  something  to  them"  {Prophets,  12, 
13).  Professor  Briggs  makes  a  similar  acknowledgment,  and 
seeks  to  g-uard  against  its  effect:  "We  should  not.  allow  our- 
selves to  be  influenced  by  the  circumstance  that  the  majority  of 
the  scholars  who  have  been  engaged  in  these  researches  have  been 
rationalistic  or  semi-rationalistic  in  their  religious  opinions ; 
and  that  they  have  employed  the  methods  and  style  peculiar 
to  the  Grerman  scholarship  of  our  century.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  motives  and  influences  that  led  to  these  investigations, 
the  questions  we  have  tO'  detei-mine  are:  (1)  What  are  the 
facts  in  the  case,  and  (2)  do  the  theoiries  account  for  the  facts  ?" 
{Bib.  Study,  212).  But  it  is  vain  to  attempt  to  allay  suspicion 
by  such  remarks  as  these.  When  the  enemies  of  tihe  Bible  in- 
vent and  propagate  theories  in  the  direct  effort  to  destroy  faith 
in  the  Bible,  the  friends  of  the  Book  must  necessarily  be  suspi- 
cious of  them ;  for  such  men  would  not  be  satisfied  with  their 
own  works  did  they  not  believe  that  the  Bible  is  discredited 
by  them. 

Prof.  W.  H.  Green  expresses  himself  on  this  point,  with 
his  usual  calmness,  in  the  following  words :  "It  is  noteavorthy 
that  the  partition  hypotheses  in  all  their  forms  have  been  elab- 
orated from  the  beginning  in  the  interest  of  unbelief.  The  un- 
friendly animus  of  an  opponent  does  not  indeed  absolve  us  from 
patiently  and  candidly  examining  his  arguments,  and  accepting 
whatever  facts  he  may  adduce,  though  we  are  not  bound  to  re- 
ceive his  perverted  interpretations  of  tliem.  !Reverthless,  we 
can  not  intelligently  nor  safely  overlook  the  palpable  bias 
against  the  supernatural  which  has  infected  the  critical  theories 
which  we  have  been  revie\ving,   from  first  to  last.     All  the 


INTRODUCTIOX.  xvil 

acknowledged  leadea*s  of  the  movement  have,  without,  exception, 
scouted  the  reality  of  miracles  and  prophecy  and  immediate  di- 
vine revelation  in  tlieir  genuine  and  evangelical  sensa  Their 
theories  are  all  inwrought  with  naturalistic  presuppositions 
which  can  not  be  disentangled  from  them  without  their  falling 
to  pieces"  (H.  C.  of  P.,  157). 

When  the  armies  of  one  nation  surrender  to  those  of  an- 
other it  is  usually  understood  that  the  latter  has  won  its  cause. 
So,  if  the  amiy  of  the  Lord  shall  surrender  to  the  enemies  of  the 
Bible  in  respect  to  the  nature  of  the  Bible  itself,  it  is  inevitable 
that  the  onlooking  world  will  take  it  that  the  cause'  of  unbaHef 
has  triumphed.  It  should  also  be  said  in  this  connection,  that 
the  same  rationalistic  scholars  w^ho  have  evolved  the  analytical 
theory  of  the  Pentateuch  have  espoused  all  of  the  old  infidel  ob- 
jections tO'  the  various  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  have 
made  these  important  parts  of  their  argimient  in  favor  of  the 
analysis.  Their  triumph,  therefore,  would  be  the  triumph  of 
infidelity  in  its  oldest  and  most  radical  forms.  If  it  is  able  to 
triumph  thus,  let  it  be  so ;  but  let  no  man  who  hopes  for  salva- 
tion in  Christ  surrender  to  the  enemy  unless  he  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  do  so  after  exhausting  all  tlie  resources  of  e\^ideiicei  and 
logic  within  his  reach.  That  the  analytical  theory  of  the  Penta- 
teuch originated  with  and  has  been  developed  by  the  enemies  of 
the  Bible,  while  it  does  not  indeed  necessarily  prove  it  to  be 
false,  establishes  a  strong  logical  presumption  that  it  is  so,  and 
demands  of  believers  that  they  continue  to  combat  it  imtil  their 
last  weapon  shall  have  been  used  in  vain. 

§5.  The  Unbelieving  Tendency  of  This  Theory. 

If  tlie  actual  tendency  of  accepting  the  theory  in  question 
is  toward  unbelief  in  the  Christian  religion,  this  fact-  is  the 
strongest  possible  vindication  of  such  a  work  as  the  jDresent. 
That  the  theory'  is  at  least  dangerous  in  tihis  respect,  is  acknowl- 
edged by  one  of  its  most  able  advocates.  Prof.  Andrew  Har- 
per, in  the  following  words :  "The  debate  concerning  the  crit- 
ical views  of  the  Old  Testament  has  reached  a  stage  at  which 


xviii  INTRODUCTION. 

it  is  no  longer  confined  to  i)rofessed  teacliiers  and  students  of 
the  Old  Testament.  It  has  filtered  down,  through  magazines 
first,  and  then  throug^h  newspapers,  into  the  public  mind,  and 
opinions  are  becoming  current  concerning  the  results  of  criti- 
cism which  are  so  partial  and  ill-informed  that  they  can  not  but 
produce  evil  results  of  a  formidable  kind  in  the  near  future."' 
Again,  after  stating  his  own  conclusions  with  respect  to  Deu- 
teronomy, he  says:  "They  have  been  reached  after  a  careful 
consideration  of  the  evidence  on  both  sides,  and  are  stated  here 
not  altogether  without  regret.  .  .  .  Foir,  as  Robertson  Smith 
has  weJl  said,  'to  the  ordinary  believer  the  Bible  is  precious  as 
the  practical  rule  of  faith  and  love  in  which  God  still  speaks 
directly  to  his  heart.  No  criticism  can  be  otherAvise  than  hurt- 
ful to  faith  if  it  shakes  the  confidence  with  which  the  simple 
Christian  turns  to  his  Bible,  assured  that  he  can  receive  every 
message  which  it  brings  to  his  soul  as  a  message  from  God  him- 
self.' ]^ow,  though  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the  view  of 
Scripture  which  permits  of  such  conclusions  as  those  stated 
above  is  quite  compatible  with  this  believing  confidence,  ther;) 
can  be  little  doubt  that  Christian  people  will  for  a  time  find 
great  difficulty  in  accepting  this  assurance.  The  transition 
from  the  old  view  of  inspiration,  so  complete,  comprehensible 
and  effective  as  it  is,  to  the  newei:'  and  less  definite  doctrine, 
can  not  fail  to  be  trying,  and  the  introduction  of  it  here  can  not 
but  be  a  disturbing  influence  which  it  woiild  have  been  greatly 
preferable  to  avoid"  (Com.,  2,  34).  Such  utterances  as  these^ 
so  candid  and  yet  so  reluctantly  madei,  imply  the  consciousness 
of  a  danger  much  greater  than  they  express.  The  actual  results 
have  been  even  more  serious  than  these  thoughtful  men  appre- 
hended. J.  J.  Lias,  one  of  the  ablest  writers  on  this  subject  in 
Great  Britain,  says  in  his  Principles  of  Bihlical  Cn'ticisyn: 
"A  statement  has  been  widely  circulated  in  the  public  press 
that  the  number  of  persons  in  Germany  who  this  year  (1893j 
declared  themselves  to  be  of  no  religion  is  fourteen  times  as 
great  as  in  1871.  Is  there  no  connection  between  this  fact  and 
the  manner  in  whieh  German  criticism  has  treated  the  Bible?" 
(216,  note). 


INTRODUCTION.  xix 

This  necessary  tendency  of  the  theory  in  (jucstion  will  re- 
eeivo  further  notice  in  the  body  of  this  work,  when  we  come  to 
speak  of  its  bearing  on  the  assertions  of  Jesns  and  his  apostles. 
It  is  but  just  to  say,  however,  before  leiaving  tlie  subject  at  pres- 
ent, that  many  scholars,  especially  in  Great  Britain  and  Amer- 
ica, have  accepted  the  analytical  theory  without  accepting  the 
sweeping  denial  of  all  miracles  which  is  common  among  its  orig- 
inators. But  this  makes  the  evil  tendency  inherent  in  the 
theory  itself  all  the  more  dangeroois  from  the  conunon  habit 
among  men  of  accepting  injurious  teaching  from  ap- 
parent friends  of  the  trnth  much  more  readily  than  from 
avowed  enemies.  On  this  point  Professor  Green  veiy  justly 
says:  "It  is  only  receaitly  that  there  has  been  an  attempt  at 
compromise  on  the  part  of  certain  believing  scholars,  who  are 
disposed  to  accept  these  critical  theoa'ies  and  endeavor  tO'  har- 
monize them  with  the  Christian  faith.  But  the  inherent  vice  in 
these  systems  can  not  be  eradicated.  The  inevitable  result  has 
been  to  low^-r  the  Christian  faith  to'  the  level  of  these  ]:)en'erted 
theories  instead  of  lifting  the  lattei"  up  to  the  level  of  a  Chris- 
tian standard." 

§6.  HELATioisr  OF  Deuteronomy  to  This  Theory. 

The  alleged  late  date  and  unknown  authorship  of  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy  are  so  involved  in  this  theory  of  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  2>art  of  it,  that,  the  disproof  thei-eof  would  shatter  the 
whole  superstructure.  This  is  apparent  w^hen  we  remember 
that  the  theory  assnmes  the  pre-e'xistence  of  the  documents  J 
and  E  in  order  to  account  for  historical  allusions  in  Deuter- 
onomy. If,  then,  this  last  Iwok  is  thro(\\ni  back  to  the  time  of 
Moses,  it  necessarily  carries  back  with  it  these  preceding  docu- 
ments, and  thus  the  whole  scheme  is  broken  to  pieces:  for  it 
is  inconceivable  that  J  and  E  were  written  before  the  time  of 
Moses.  Prof.  Andrew  Harper  indirectly  admits  this  w^ben  he 
says :  "Deuteronomy  has  been  the  key  of  the  position,  the  ceai-  ? 
ter  of  the  conflict,  in  the  battle  which  lias  been  waged  so  hotly 
as  to  the  growth  of  religion  in  Israel.     The  attack  on  the  views 


XX  INTRODUCTION. 

hitherto  so  genea^ally  held  within  the  church  in  regard  to  that 
matter  has  rested  more  upon  the  character  and  the  date  of  Deu- 
teronomy than  upon  anything  else"  {Com.,  2).  It  is  for  this 
reason,  chiefly,  that  tOa©  authorship  of  this  book  has  been  se^ 
lected  as  the  subject  of  this  volume.  While  it  is  a  matter  of  im- 
l)(jrtance  in  itself  to  know  the  authorship  of  a  book  so  invaluable, 
li?'  importance  is  greatly  enhanced  by  the  consideration  that  in 
settling  this  question  we  virtually  settle  the  same  respecting  the 
other  books  of  the  Pentateoich.  It  would  arg-ue,  ]3erhap&,  an 
extreme  of  self-confidence  were  the  author  to  express  tlie  convic- 
tion that  what  he  has  said  will  settle  this  question,  for  doubtless 
the  time  and  labor  to  be  expended  ©re  the  critical  superstructure 
of  a  centuiy's  growth  can  be  undermined  and  demolished,  a? 
the  present  author  believes  it  certainly  ^nll  be,  are  likely  to  be 
somewhat  commensurate  witli  those  by  which  it  was  built  up. 
The  conflict  hitherto  has  been  chiefly  that  between  the  warring 
factions  among  the  advanced  critics  themselves;  "hereafter  it 
will  be  between  the  united  advocates  of  the  finally  accepted, 
theory  and  the  friends  of  the  Bible  as  it  is.  It  is  for  the  pur- 
pose of  taking  an  humble  part  in  this  conflict  tbat  tliis  volume 
is  presented  to  the  public. 

§7.  Plax  of  This  Work. 

The  natural  order  in  which  to  discuss  the  authorship  of 
a  book  is  to  begin  with  the  claim  set  up  in  the  book  itself,  and 
consider  first  the  internal  evidences  for  and  against  it.  This 
would  have  been  the  order  of  the  present  discussion  but  for  the 
fiict  that  certain  prepossessions  have  taken  hold  of  the  minds 
oC  many,  and  until  these  are  removed  a  favorable  consideration 
ol  this  evidence  would  be  well-nigh  impossible.  It  therefore 
seemed  to  the  author  wiser  to  begin  with  tlie  arguments  and  evi- 
dences which  have  been  arrayed  on  the  negative  side  of  the 
question,  and  to  divide  the  discussion  into  two  parts,  of  which 
Part  I.  is  a  consideration  of  the  groimds  on  Avhich  the  Mosaic 
authorship  is  denied,  and  Part  II.  a  presentation  of  those  on 
which  it  is  afiirmed. 


INTRODUCTION.  xxl 

Eveu  witli  tliis  beginiiiiig  we  might  have  been  Gxj)ecteil  to 
consider  first  tlie  internal  evidence  against  tlie  Mosaic  author- 
ship, but  there  stands  in  the  forefront  of  tlie  negative  position 
the  assumption  mentioned  in  a  previous  section  (3,  p.  vii  )  as 
to  the  actual  origin  of  the  book,  and  tliis  take-s  precedence  of 
all  other  considerations.  Our  discussion  begins,  therefore, 
v\'ith  what  tlie  adverse  critics  have  said  with  reference  to  the 
book  discovered  by  the  priest  Hilkiah,  as  recorded  in  the  twen- 
tj-second  chapter  of  II.  Kings. 

In  representing  the  positions  and  arguments  which  I  con- 
trovert, I  have  not  usually  stated  them  in  my  own  words,  lest 
I  might  be  suspected  of  misrepresenting  thean,  and  lest  I  should 
in  some  instances  unwittingly  do  so;  but  I  have  quo'teil  freelv 
from  representative  authors.  In  pursuing  this  course',  I  ha^'e 
taken  pains  to  follow  on  every  leading  issue  the  line  of  argu- 
mentation pursued  by  that  scholar  on  the  othejf  side  who  seemed 
to  present  the  case  with  the  greatast  force;  and  where  it  ap- 
peared important  I  have  appended  foot-notes  referring  for  con- 
firmation to  other  authors.  If  this  method  shall  appear  to  any 
reader  a  more  personal  form  of  controversy  than  conrtesj' 
might  suggest,  I  beg  him  to  considei'  that  it  gives  more  di- 
rectness and  piquancy  to  discussion;  and  not  to  forget  thai. 
when  an  author  places  himself  bcfoi*e  the  public  as  an  antago- 
nist of  established  and  cherished  beliefs,  he  voluntarily  exposes 
himself  to  direct  attack.  If,  in  this  somewhat  personal  contro- 
versy, I  have  at  any  time  overstepped  the  bounds  of  courtes\-, 
I  offer  as  my  apology  the  indigiiation  which  must  ever  stir  the 
breast  of  a  friend  of  the  Bible  when  he  sees  it  assailed  by  ar- 
guments so  shaillow  and  sophistical  as  to  bo  unworthy  of  their 
authors.  And  if  at  any  time  I  ha.ve  indulged  in  lightness^  it 
should  be  remembered  that  ridicule,  when  justly  administered, 
is  a  most  proper  and  effective  weapon  in  the  defense  of  truth. 

§8.    AUTIIOKITIES    AXD    ABBREVIATIONS. 

a.  List  of  works  chief y  consulted  in  'preparing  this  vol- 
ume : 


xxii  INTRODUCTION. 

Tlio  Propheitri  of  Israel:  W.  Ko'bertsum  Sinitli. 

Old  Testament  in  tlie  Jeiwisib.  CburcL:  same  authoa';  sec- 
ond eilitiooi. 

lilt  rod  iiction  tO'  the  Litea'ature  of  tlie  Old  Testament:  S. 
R.  Driver;  sixtli  edition. 

International  Critical  Commentary:  Deutoronomy:  same 
author. 

Expositor's  Bible:  Deiitea-onomy :  Andrew  Harper. 

The  Documents  of  the  ITexateudi:  W.  E.  Addis. 

International  Critical  Commentary:  Judges:  George  E, 
j\Ioore. 

The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament :  Herbert  E.  Kyle. 

The  Expositor's  Bible:  Isaiah:  George  Adam  Smith. 

Biblical  Study :  Charles  A.  Briggs. 

Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch :  same  author. 

The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah :  T.  K.  Cheyne, 

Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges:  Ilosea:  same 
author. 

Polychrome  Bible :  Isaiah  :  same  author. 

Polychrome  Bible :  Joshua :  W.  H.  Bennett. 

Polychro'ine  Bible:  Judges:  George  E.  Moore. 

Articles  "Israel"  and  "Pentateuch,"  in  Encyclopedia  Brit- 
annica  :    ninth  edition:     Julius  Wellhausen. 

Prolegomena  to  Old  Teetajiient:  siimo  author. 

The  Beligiou  of  Israel :  Abraham  Kuenen. 

The  Oracles  of  God :  W.  Sanday. 

Triple  Tradition  of  the  Exodus:  Benj.  W.  Bacon. 

The  Unity  of  Genesis:  William  Henry  Green. 

Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch:  same  author. 

The  Pentateuch:  Its  Origin  and  Structure:  E.  C.  Bissell. 

Lex  Mosaica :  Essays  by  Twelve  Eminent  Scholars  of 
Great  Britain. 

Sanctuary  and  Sacrifice:  W.  L.  Baxter. 

Principles  of  Biblical  Criticism :  J.  J.  Lias. 

Early  PeiHgion  of  Israel:  James  Robertson. 

Prophecy  and  History  in  Reference  to  the  Messiah :  Alfred 
Edersheim. 


INTRODUCTION.  xxiii 

Did  Moses  Write  the  Pentateuch  after  Alii!:  F.  E.  Spen- 
cer. 

Inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament:  Alfred  Cave. 

The  Veracity  of  the  Ilexateuch :  S.  C.  Bartlett. 

The  Higher  Critics  Criticised:  Rufus  P.  Steibbins  and 
B.  L.  Hastings. 

The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition :  Fritz  Hommel. 

h.  Ahhrevlations  used  in  citing  hooks  in  the  preceding  list 
that  are  most  frequently  referred  to: 

In  coimectiom  with  the  name  of  W.  Robertson  Smith, 
Prophets  stands  for  ^'The  Prophets  of  Israel;"  0.  T.— ''Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church." 

In  connection  with  the  name  of  S.  R.  Driver,  Int. — "In- 
troduction to  Old  Testament  Literature;"  Com. — "Commen- 
tary on  Deuteronomy." 

In  connection  with  Andrew  Harpei-,  Com. — "Commentary 
on  Deuteronomy." 

In  connection  with  W.  E.  Addis,  D.  of  H. — "Documents 
of  the  Hexateuch." 

In  connectioin  with  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Bib.  Study — "Bib- 
lical Study;"  H.  C.  of  H. — "Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch." 

In  connection  with  T.  K.  Cheyne,  Isaiah — "The  Prophe- 
cies of  Isaiah ;"  Ilosen — "Commentary  on  Hosea  ;"  Pol.  Isaiah 
— ^"Isaiab  in  the  Polychrome  Bible." 

Encyc.  Brit. — "Encyclopedia  Britannica;"  Encyc.  Bib, — 
"Encyclopedia  Biblica ;"  Lex  M. — "Lex  Mosaica." 

In  connection  with  W.  H.  Green,  H.  C.  of  P. — "Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Pentateaich." 

In  connection  with  W.  L.  Baxter,  Sane,  and  Sac. — "Sanc- 
tuary and  Sacrifice." 

In  connection  -v\'ith  Alfred  Edereheim,  P.  and  H. — 
"Prophecy  and  History  in  Reference  to  the  Messiah." 

In  connection  with  Alfi-ed  Cave,  I.  0.  T. — "Inspiration 
.of  the  Old  Testament," 


PART    I. 

EYIDENCES  FOR  THE  LATE  DATE. 


PABT  I. 

EVIDENCES  FOR  THE  LATE  DATE. 
§1.     Evidence  ebom  the  Account  of  Hilkiah's  Discovery. 

There  is  iiotJiing  on  wliicli   destructive  critics   are  more 

fully  agreed,  or  more  confident  in  their  convictions,  than  that 

the  book  found  in  the  temple  by  the  priest  Hilkiah,  as  described 

in  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  II.  Kings,  was  the  legal  part 

cf  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy ;  and  that  this  was  the  first  time 

tiiat  a  book  of  law  existed  in  Israel.     This  conclusio'n  is  argued 

with  great  confidence  from  the  account  of  the  book  given  in  the 

chapter  named  and  the  chapter  following.     I  regard  the  second 

chapter  of  Kyle's  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  strongest 

and  clearest  presentation  of  this  line  of  argument  known  to 

me,  and  he  shall  be  my  guide  in  the  discussion  of  it.    Professor 

Ryle  introduces  the  discussion  with  the  following  paragraph: 

It  is  not  till  the  year  621  B.  C,  the  eighteenth  year  of  the  reign 
of  King  Josiah,  that  the  history  of  Israel  presents  us  with  the  first 
instance  of  a  book  which  was  regarded  by  all — king,  priests,  proph- 
ets and  people  alike — as  invested  not  only  with  sanctity,  but  also 
with  supreme  authority  in  all  matters  of  religion  and  conduct 
(p.   47.) 

To  avoid  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  readers  not  fa- 
miliar with  the  subject,  I  should  remark  that  the  author  does 
not  here  mean  to  deny  the  previous  existence  of  the  conjectural 
documents  J  and  E  of  the  critics,  which,  according  to  the  an- 
alytical theory,  had  been  written  from  one  to  two  hundred  years 
earlier;  but  these  documents,  according  to  hypothesis,  were  his- 
torical in  their  contents,  and  not  books  of  law.  (See  Int., 
p  ix.). 

Before  entering  upon  his  argument.  Professor  Ryle  makes 
another  statement  as  to  the  appreciation  which  was  at  once 
accorded  the  book,  in  the  follownng  paragraph : 


g  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

In  this  familiar  scene,  "the  book  of  the  law"  stands  in  the  posi- 
tion of  Canonical  Scripture.  It  is  recognized  as  containing  the 
words  of  the  Lord  (xxii.  18,  19).  Its  authority  is  undisputed  and 
indisputable.  On  the  strength  of  its  words  the  most  sweeping  meas- 
ures are  carried  out  by  the  king  and  accepted  by  the  people.  The 
whole  narrative,  so  graphically  told  by  one  who  was  possibly  a  con- 
temporary of  the  events  he  describes,  breathes  the  conviction  that 
the  homage  paid  to  "the  book"  was  nothing  more  than  its  just  due 
(p.  48). 

These  words  we  must  not  forget,  for  they  have  a  potent 
hearing  on  tlie  arguments  hy  which  the  author  proceeds  to  sup- 
port his  first  pro}x>sition. 

To  the  minds  of  all  scholars  opposed  to  destructive  criti- 
cism, these  words  are  perfectly  acceptable;  and  all  the  results 
of  finding  the  book  are  precisely  what  should  be  expected.  For 
if,  as  they  believe,  and  as  the  Scriptures  assert.,  the  whole  Pen- 
tateuch had  been  in  existence  since  the  days  of  Moses,  it  would 
have  disappeared  from  public  view  during  the  long  reign  of 
Manasseh,  who  abolished  the  religion  which  it  inculcated, 
turned  the  temple  of  Jehovah  into  a  heathen  pantheon,  prac- 
ticed every  idolatrous  rite  known  to  the  pagan  tribes  aroimd 
him,  and  shed  innocent  blood  from  one  end  of  Jerusailem  to 
the  other.  It  would  have  been  as  much  as  the  life  of  any  Jew 
was  worth  during  that  period  to  have  possessed  a  copy  of  the 
divine  law  and  sought  to  propagate  its  teaching.  And  that  pe- 
riod had  lasted,  though  not  in  its  greatest  darkness,  for  seventy- 
five  years,  including  the  fifty-five  of  Manasseh's  reign,  the  two 
of  his  son  Amon,  and  the  first  eighteen  of  Josiah.  Josiah  him- 
self, being  the  son  of  Amon  and  grandson  of  Manasseh,  had  en 
joyed  during  their  lifetime  no  opportunity  to  see  the  book  of 
the  law,  or  to  learn  anything  of  its  contents.  It  was  only  after 
bis  father's  death,  when  he  was  eight  years  old,  that  men  and 
women  of  faith  who  had  lived  through  the  period  of  apostasy, 
and  who  remembered  some  of  the  contents  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
had  an  opportunity  to  impart  to  his  yoimg  mind  what  they 
themselves  remembered  of  the  word  of  God.  That  some  such 
knmvledge  was  imparted  to  him  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign  "he  began  to  seek  after  the  God 
of  his  father  David ;"  and  in  the  twelfth  vear  of  tlie  same  "he 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTEROXOMY.  3 

began  to  purge  Jerusmleiu  and  Judali  from  tJio  high  phices,  and 
the  Asherini,  and  tJie  graven  images,  and  tJie  molten  images" 
(11.  Ohron.  xxxiv.  3).  At  this  time  he  had  undoubtedly 
learne<:l  that  Israel  onoe  had  a  law;  that  imder  the  leadership 
of  his  grandfather  they  had  departed  from  it;  and  that  it  was 
his  duty  to  lead  the  people  back  to  it.  He  knew  from  what 
worship  his  grandfather  had  departed,  and  knew  that  idolatry 
in  all  its  forms  was  unlawful  in  Israel.  He  was  well  prepared 
then,  should  the  book  of  the  law  be  put  into  his  hands,  to  re- 
ceive it  as  the  ancient  law  of  his  God  and  his  coimtry,  and  to 
give  it  the  reverence  which  it  deserved. 

Again,  when  Hilkiah  found  the  book  of  the  law  in  tha 
temple,  he  found  it  just  where  it  ought  to  have  been;  and  the 
finding  caused  no  s.urprise,  unless  it  was  because  it  had  not 
perished  while  the  temple  was  so  grossly  defiled.  For  an 
express  provision  of  the  law  required  that  the  Book  of  Deute- 
ronomy should  l>e  kept  in  the  temple  "by  the  side  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant"  (DeaTt.  xxxi.  24-26).  And  though  we  find  no  ex- 
press command  like  this  in  regard  to  the  preservation  of  the 
ether  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  may  infer  with  full  con- 
fidence that,  if  they  existed,  the  priests  and  Levites  realized 
that  they  must  be  kept  in  the  same  place  of  security. 

With  all  this  agree  perfectly  the  words  of  Hilkiah  when 
he  handed  the  book  to  Sliapban,  the  scribe  or  secretary  of  the 
king.  He  said,  "I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house 
oi  Jehovah"  (TI.  Kings  xxii.  8).  This  is  the  style  of  one  to 
whom  the  title  of  the  book  was  familiar.  He  did  not  say,  "a 
book  containing  the  law  of  Jehovah;"  nor,  "a  book  which  ap- 
peareth  to  be  the  law  of  Jeliovah;"  but,  "the  book  of  the  law 
cf  Jehovah."  It  is  not  the  language  of  one  to  whom  the  book 
v/as  a  new  thing,  but  that  of  one  to  whom  it  was  perfectly  well 
knoAvn,  but  had  been  in  some  sense  lost. 

The  words,  "I  have  found  the  book,"  do  not  necessarily 
imply  that  it  had  been  hidden,  although  it  may  have  been.  It 
may  be  that  some  faithful  priest,  at  the  beginning  of  ]\Ianas- 
seh's  desecration  of  the  temple,  had  hidden  it  to  prevent  its  de- 
struction, and  that  in  thoroughily  cleansing  the  walls  and  floor 


4  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

of  the  teanpile  its  hiding-place  ^^■'as  disclosed ;  but  the  words  may 
be  as  well  accounted  for  if,  after  the  long  time  in  which  it  was 
exposed  to  destniction,  he  found  it  where  it  had  beeoi  kept  ever 
since  the  erection  of  the  temple.  The  agents  of  Manasseh,  not- 
withstanding their  hatred  of  the  book  and  its  contents,  may 
have  permitted  it  to  remain  in  its  place,  because  in  that  place 
it  was  out  of  tlie  reach  of  the  j)eople  and  in  their  own  posses- 
sion. The  history  which  it  contained  might  have  served  as  a 
motive  for  leaving  it  undisturbed  so  long  as  the  Avorship  which 
it  enjoined  was  being  effectually  suppressed. 

Finally,  when  the  book  was  read  to  the  king,  then  by  the 
prophetess  Huldah,  and  tliem  by  the  king  himself  to  the  people, 
the  consternation  and  alarm  which  its  threateoings  excited  are 
precisely  such  as  would  naturally  occur  if  the  book  was  known 
to  be  the  old  law-book  of  the  nation  given  by  God  through 
Moses;  but  they  are  imnatural,  and  even  incredible,  on  any 
other  hypothesis. 

We  may  also  remark,  in  addition,  that  every  single  act  of 
the  reformation  which  resulted  from  the  discovery  of  this  book 
would  just  as  naturally  and  certainly  have  resuilted  had  the 
took  been  the  whole  Pentateuch,  as  if  it  had  been  only  the  legal 
portion  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  What,  then,  can  be  the 
motive  for  denying  that  it  was  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  by 
what  course  of  reasoning  is  that  denial  supported  ?  Professor 
Eyle  undertakes  to  foraially  answer  this  question,  and  I  copy 
his  argument  in  full : 

When  we  inquire  what  this  "book  of  the  law"  comprised,  the 
evidence  at  our  disposal  is  quite  sufficiently  explicit  to  direct  us  to  a 
reply.  Even  apart  from  the  knowledge  which  we  now  possess  of  the 
structure  of  the  Pentateuch,  there  never  was  much  probability  in  the 
supposition  that  the  book  discovered  by  Hilkiah  was  identical  with 
the  whole  Jewish  "Torah,"  our  Pentateuch.  The  narrative  does  not 
suggest  so  considerable  a  work.  Its  contents  were  quickly  perused 
and  readily  grasped.  Being  read  aloud,  it  at  once  left  distinct  im- 
pressions upon  questions  of  national  duty.  Its  dimensions  could  not 
have  been  very  large  nor  its  precepts  very  technical.  The  complex 
character  of  the  Pentateuch  fails  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the 
picture.  Perhaps,  too  (although  the  argument  is  hardly  one  to  be 
pressed),  as  it  appears  that  only  a  single  roll  of  the  Law  was  found, 
it  may  not  unfairly  be  remarked  that  the  whole  Torah  was  never 
likely  to  be  contained  in  one  roll;  but  that,  if  a  single  roll  contained 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  5 

any  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  was  most  probably  the  Deutero- 
nomic  portion  of  it;  for  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  of  all  the  com- 
ponent elements  of  the  Pentateuch,  presents  the  most  unmistakable 
appearance  of  having  once  formed  a  compact  independent  work  (p. 
48f.). 

The  question  here  raised  is  vital  in  this  discussion ;  that  is, 
it  is  vital  as  respects  the  analytical  theory.  With  those  who 
credit  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy,  it  is  immaterial 
v/hether  the  book  was  the  whole  Pentateuch  or  Deuteronomy 
alone;  but  with  the  other  party  it  is  absolutely  essemtial  to  show 
that  it  was  not  the  whole  Pentateuch,  because  it  is  an  essential 
part  of  their  theory  that  much  the  greater  part  of  the  Penta- 
teuch had  not  been  written  when  this  book  was  found.  For  this 
reason  nearly  every  writer  in  favor  of  the  theory  makes  some 
attempt  at  argument  on  this  point. 

The  first  point  of  argument  in  the  preceding  extract  is 
that  the  book  was  read  in  too  short  a  time,  and  that  it  left  im- 
pressions too  distinct  for  the  whole  Pentateuch.  In  making 
this  argument  the  professor  draws  on  his  imagination  ;  for  there 
is  nothing  said  in  the  text  about  the  time  consumed  in  the  read- 
ing. Mr.  Addis  goes  further  still.  He  says:  "It  would  have 
been  a  sheer  impossibility  to  read  the  Pentateuch,  or  even  the 
legal  portions  of  the  Pentatouch,  thTOugh  aloud,  in  one  day; 
much  less  could  it  have  been  read  twice  in  one  day."  He  says 
further  that  "the  kernel  of  Deuteronomy  (i  e.,  Deut.  iv.  45 
to  xxvi.,  or  possibly  xii.  to  xxvi. ;  xxvii.  9,  10 ;  xxviii. ; 
xxxi.  9-13)  exactly  meets  the  required  conditions.  It  could  be 
read  through  aloud  in  between  three  and  four  hours  at  most'' 
(D.  of  H.,  Ixxv.). 

Doubtless  Mr,  Addis  Is  right  in  asserting  that  the  portions 
of  Deuteronomy  which  he  selects  as  the  probable  contents  of  the 
book  could  be  read  through  in  between  three  and  four  hours ; 
but,  in  order  to  reduce  the  time  to  this  limit,  he  has  to  assume 
that  the  book  contained  only  the  chapters  and  verses  which  he 
cites.  If  it  was  the  whole  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  it  would  have 
required  six  hours  to  read  it  through,  and  to  have  read  it  twice 
in  one  day  would  have  filled  the  day  from  sun  to  sun.  But 
Shaphan  read  it  onoe  to  himself;  he  read  it  to  the  king  once; 


e  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

and  then  Huldah  eitJier  read  it  or  pronounced  judgineat  con- 
cerning its  contemts  without  reading  it,  which  is  highly  improb- 
able (II.  Kings  xxii.  8,  10,  14-16).  These  three  readings 
are  rather  too  much  for  one  day,  evein  if  the  contents  were  as 
meager  as  Mr.  Addis  supposes;  and  it  follows  eithei'  that  more 
than  one  day  was  occupied,  or  that  only  a  part  of  the  contents 
oi  the  book  was  read ;  that  is,  the  part  which  alarmed  the  king 
and  caused  him  to  i*end  his  clothes.  Chapteirs  xxviii.  to  xxx. 
would  have  been  sufficient  foir  this;  and  this  part  of  Deute- 
ronomy, or  any  other  part,  of  it,  may  have  been  read  to  the  king 
if  the  book  from  which  it  was  read  was  the  whole  Pentateiuch. 
Indeed,  this  is  the  very  part  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  which  it 
was  most  important  foi*  him  to  hear,  seeing  that  it,  above  all 
other  parts,  presented  the  fea.rfid  j>enalties  which  God  had 
prescribed  for  such  an  apostasy  as  that  imder  Manasseh  and 
Amon.  The  only  thing  that  militates  against  this  view  of  the 
reading  is,  that  when  the  king  read  to  the  people,  it  is  said  that 
"he  read  in  their  ears  all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  cove- 
nant which  was  found  in  the  house  of  Jehovah"  (xxiii.  2).  But 
while  these  words  most  naturally  include  all  the  contents  of 
the  book,  they  may  refer  to  only  those  wo-rds  connected  imme- 
diately with  "the  covenant ;"  and  the  covenant  is  especially  em- 
phasized in  the  denunciatory  passage  just  mentioned.  (See 
xxix.  1-13).  Huldah  uses  the  same  universal  expression,  when 
she  says  (16)  :  "Thus  saith  Jehovah,  Behold,  I  will  bring  evil 
upon  this  place,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  thereof,  even  all  the 
words  of  the  book  which  the  king  of  Judah  hath  read."  Here, 
although  she  says  "all  the  words  of  the  book,"  she  clearly  limits 
her  meaning  to  those  in  whicli  evil  to  the  city  and  its  people 
is  predicted.  This  justifies  us  in  limiting  the  same  expression, 
vdien  applied  to  the  public  reading,  to  the  same  part  of  the 
book.  Unless,  then,  we  construe  this  passage  to  mean  that  all 
the  contents  of  the  book  were  read,  as  ^vell  as  the  part  pertain- 
ing to  the  covenant  and  its  violation,  the  reading  co'uld  have 
been  done  from  a  book  containing  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch 
as  well  as  from  one  containing  Deuteronomy  alone.  It  fo'llows 
that  whether  the  book  was  Deuteronomy  alone,  or  part,  of  our 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  T 

present  Deuteronomy,  is  involved  in  great  uncertainty,  to  say 
the  least,  and  that  to  this  extent  the  same  micertainty  hangs 
over  that  part  of  the  analytical  theory  which  assigns  a  later 
date  than  that  of  Deuteronomy  to  the  greater  portion  of  our 
present  Pentateuch.  An  adverse  decision  on  this  point  would 
be  an  obstacle  not  to  be  overcome  by  any  argTimentation  in 
favor  of  the  analytical  theory.  This  uncertainty  is  enhanced 
when  we  consider  the  bearing  of  another  passage  in  the  his- 
tory of  Josiah.  It  is  said  (xxiii.  25)  :  "And  like  unto  him 
was  there  no  king  before  him,  that  turned  to  Jehovah  with  all 
his  heart,  and  with  all  his  soul,  and  with  all  his  might,  ac- 
cording to  all  the  law  of  MosesJ'  What  is  meant  here  by  "all 
tlie  law  of  Moses"  ?  The  expression  certainly  includes  the 
book  of  the  law  found  by  Hilkiah ;  but  if  the  analytical 
theory  is  true,  it  includes  more;  for,  according  to  that  theory, 
the  documents  J  and  E  w^ere  already  in  existence,  and  they 
were  w^ell  knowoi  to  the  author  of  Kings.  But  J  contained 
not  only  his  history  from  the  creation  to  the  death  of  Joshua, 
but  also  the  laws  now  found  in  Ex.  xx.  to  xxiii.,  originally 
called  "The  Book  of  the  Covenant."  Josiah  walked,  then, 
according  to  all  that  was  written  in  this  book,  and  in  the  whole 
of  the  books  J  and  E.  But  where  did  he  find  the  latter  after 
the  apostasy  of  his  fatheir  and  his  grandfather,  imless  they 
were  included  in  the  book  of  the  law  found  by  Hilkiah  ?  We 
have  no  hint  of  any  other  book  of  the  law  kno'\\ai  to  him.  Cer- 
tainly, then,  the  critics  ought  to  admit  that  J  and  E  were  in 
Hilkiah's  book ;  and  if  these  were  there,  their  line  of  argu- 
ment against  the  presence  in  it  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  breaks 
down,  so  far  as  it  is  derived  from  the  account  given  of  Hil- 
kiah's discovery. 

Before  leaving  this  branch  of  the  argument,  I  may  add 
that  Andrew  Harper,  who  is  tlie  ]>eei'  of  any  other  writer  on 
the  analytical  side,  unlike  Addis  and  many  others,  admits  that 
the  book  in  question  was  substantially  Deuteronomy  as  we 
now  have  it.     He  savj^ : 

That  this?  was  Deuteronomy,  if  not  altogether,  yet  practically, 
as  we  have  it  now,  there  can  be  but  little  doubt:   and  it  immediately 


8  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

became  the  text-book  of  religion  for  all  that  remained  of  Israel   (Ex- 
positor's Bible,  Deuteronomy,  p.  45). 

He  forgets,  as  his  colleagues  do,  the  ''book  of  the  covenant" 
embodied  in  J  and  JE. 

The  second  point  of  argument  in  the  extract  which  I  have 
made  from  Ryle's  Canon  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the 
whole  Pentateuch  was  never  likely  to  be  contained  in  one  roll. 
Unlike  the  majority  of  his  class  of  critics,  however,  he  ad- 
mits that  this  argument  is  "hardly  one  to  be  pressed."  It  cer- 
tainly is  not,  for  two  reasons;  first,  that  the  document  is  no- 
where called  a  roll,  but  always  a  book;  and,  second,  that  as 
the  Pentateuch  was  always  spoken  of  in  ancient  times  by  the 
Jews  as  one  book,  it  follows  that  when  written  on  a  roll  in- 
fetead  of  leaves,  it  is  most  probable  tbat  one  roll  received  it 
all.  The  roll  would  be  a  large  one,  but  large  rolls  were  do 
iiiore  objectionable  in  the  time  of  manuscripts  than  large  vol- 
umes were  after  the  time  of  printing.  But  it  is  idle  to  argue 
about  tfhe  size  of  a  roll  containing  the  whole  Pentateuch,  when 
the  document  in  question  was  not  a  roll,  but  a  hook. 

It   is   surprising   with   what   caution    Professor   Ryle   ex- 

pi-essee  himself  on  the  question  whetlier  the  book  found  by 

Hilkiali  was  our  Deuteronomy,  or  a  paxt  of  it,  and,  if  a  part, 

v/hat  part.     He  says: 

We  seem  to  have  convincing  proof  that  the  "book  of  the  law" 
was  either  a  portion  of  our  Deuteronomy,  or  a  collection  of  laws  Deu- 
teronomic  in  tone,  and,  in  range  of  contents,  having  a  close  resem- 
blance to  our  Book  of  Deuteronomy   (p.  49). 

When  we  consider  that  it  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  an- 
alytical theory  of  tiie  Pentateuch  to  establish  the  identity  of 
that  book  with  Deuteironomy,  or,  at  least,  with  the  legal  por- 
tion of  it,  this  mode  of  speech  is  vague  enough ;  and  it  shows 
that  the  writer's  own  convictions  on  the  subject  were  in  a 
nebulous  condition.  In  his  attempts  at  proof  we  find,  as  we 
should  naturally  expect,  the  same  vagueness  which  charactei- 
izes  his  proposition.  He  claims  that  the  evidence  is  twofold, 
and  the  first  form  of  it  he  states  in  these  words: 

1.  The  description  which  is  given  of  the  book  found  in  the  tem- 
ple shows  that,  in   the   most  characteristic   feature,   it  approximated 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  9 

more  closely  to  portions  of  Deuteronomy  than  to  any  other  section 
oi.  the   Pentateuch    (ib.). 

This  vagueness  should  not  be  held  as  a  reproach  to  Pro- 
fessQir  Ryle,  but  rather  as  an  evidence  of  his  conscientiousnes^s, 
and  of  his  logical  discriminatioii.  lie  is  too  logical  to  deduce 
positive  conclusions  from  doubtful  premises,  and  too  conscien- 
tious to  affirm  what  he  feels  that  he  can  not  prove.  But  he 
proceeds  to  present  what  proofs  he  has,  and  we  patiently  coai- 
sider  them : 

(o)  The  book  contains  denunciations  against  the  neglect  of  the 
covenant  with  Jehovah  (II.  Kings  xxii.  11,  13,  16,  17).  Now,  the 
Pentateuch  contains  two  extensive  passages  describing  the  fearful 
visitations  that  should  befall  the  people  of  Israel  for  following  after 
other  gods  (Lev.  xxvi.;  Deut.  xxviii.-xxxi.).  Of  these,  the  passage 
in  Deuteronomy  is  the  longest,  and  while  the  passage  in  Leviticus 
would  be  calculated  to  make  a  very  similar  impression,  it  may  be  no- 
ticed that  the  words  of  Huldah,  referring  to  the  curse  contained  in 
"the  book  of  the  law,"  possibly  contain  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxviii. 
3V  and  xxix.  24  (cf.  II.  Kings  xxii.  19).  It  can  not  be  doubted  that 
one  or  the  other,  or  both,  of  these  denunciations  must  have  been  in- 
cluded in  Josiah's  "book  of  the  law"    (p.  50). 

As  proof  that  the  denunciations  which  alarmed  Josiah 
v^ere  those  in  Deuteronomy  rather  than  those  in  Leviticus, 
this  is  feebleness  itself.  It  turns  upon  the  "possibility,"  not 
the  certainty,  nor  even  the  probability,  tliat  the  words  of  Hul 
dah  contain  a  reference  to  two  particular  verses  in  Deuteron- 
omy. What  are  these  particular  words  of  Huldah.?  The 
verse  cited  reads:  "Because  thine  heart  was  tender,  and  thou 
didst  humble  thyself  before  Jehovah,  when  thou  heardst  what 
I  spake  against  this  place,  and  against  the  inhabitants  there- 
of, that  they  should  become  a  desolation  and  a  curse,  and 
hast  rent  thy  clothes,  and  vmpt  before  me;  I  have  also  heard 
thee,  saith  Jehovah."  These  are  the  words  of  Huldah,  and 
the  verses  in  Denteironomy  to  which  she  "possibly"  had  refer- 
ence are  these:  "And  thou  shalt  become  an  astonishment,  a 
proverb,  and  a  byword,  among  all  the  peoples  whither  Jehovah 
shall  lead  thee  away"  (Deut.  xxviii.  37)  ;  "Even  all  the  na- 
tions shall  say,  Wherefore  hath  Jehovah  done  this  unto  this 
land  ?  What  meaneth  the  heat  of  this  great  anger  ?"  (xxix. 
24).     Well  might  the  professor  siay  that  the  words  of  Huldah 


10  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OP 

possibly  coaitain  a  refeiviice  to  the  latten'  two  versee.  When 
all  tthi'ee  of  the  verses  are  merely  cited  by  theiir  chapter  and 
verse  munbers,  the  reader  may  possibly  think  that  possibly 
there  is  such  a  reference;  but  when  they  are  all  quoted  in 
full,  seriatim,  he  can  judge  of  this  possibility,  and  he  can 
see  why  our  cautious  author  uses  the  adverb  "possibly" — an 
expression  not  characteristic  of  conclusive  reasoning. 

But,  apart  from  all  this  reasoning  from  possible  prem- 
ises, we  may  freely  admit,  and  our  position  requires  us  to 
admit,  what  Professor  Eyle  states  as  his  conclusion,  that  "one 
or  the  other,  or  both  these  denunciations  must  have  been 
included  in  Josiah's  'book  of  the  law ;'  "  for  if  it  was  the  denun- 
ciations in  Lev.  xxvi.  that  alarmed  him,  this  would  show 
that  the  Book  of  Leviticus  Was  in  the  volume;  if  it  was  those 
in  Deoiteronomy,  this  would  only  prove  that  Deuteronomy  was 
in  the  book;  and  if  Shaphan  read  both  sets  of  denunciations, 
it  only  proves  that  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy  were  both  in 
the  book.  In  other  words,  whatever  proof  is  found  that  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  quoted  or  refei'red  to  in  this  account 
is  proof  that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  in  the  manuscript, 
as  it  must  have  been  if  the  manuscript  was  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch; but  it  is  not  proof,  it  can  not  be,  that  the  other  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  were  absent  from  it.  It  is  on  this  last  point, 
as  we  shall  see  again  and  again,  that  the  whole  line  of  argu- 
ment which  we  are  considering  is  fatally  defective. 

The  second  argument  under  this  head  is  stated  by  Pro- 
fessor Ryle  in  the  following  words : 

(6)  The  reforms  carried  out  by  the  king  and  his  advisers,  in 
order  to  obey  the  commands  of  the  "book  of  the  law,"  deal  with 
matters  all  of  which  are  mentioned,  with  more  or  less  emphasis,  in 
the  Deuteronomic  legislation   (p.  50). 

Suppose  this  to  be  true,  and  what  does  it  prove?  If  it 
were  found,  upon  furthei*  examination,  that  these  reforms 
deal  with  matters  not  mentioned  in  any  book  of  the  Pentateuch 
except  Deuteronomy,  it  ■v\'0'uld  certainly  prove  that  Deuteron- 
omy was  in  the  book  that  was  found;  but  it  woidd  not  prove 
that  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  was  not  in  it.     The  doctrinal 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  11 

part  of  LutJier's  Reformation  tuiiied  upon  the  teaching  found 

in  Paul's  two  epistles,  Galatians  and  Romans;  but  this  is  by 

no  means  proof  tliat  Luther's  New  Testament  contained  none 

of  the  otliCT  books  that  axe  in  ours. 

But  let  us  examine  the  specifications  adduced  in  support 

of  this  proposition: 

(i)  The  principal  religious  reform  carried  out  by  Josiah  was 
the  suppression  of  the  worship  at  the  high  places,  and  concentration 
of  the  worship  at  the  temple.  No  point  is  insisted  on  so  frequently 
and  so  emphatically  in  the  Deuteronomic  laws  as  that  all  public 
worship  is  to  be  centralized  at  the  one  place  which  Jehovah  himself 
should  choose   (Deut.  xii.  5  and  passim). 

Grant  all  this  and  what  is  proved  by  it  beyond  the  fact 
that  Deuteronomy  was  part  of  the  book?  What  proof  does 
it  afford  that  Deuteronomy,  or  some  part  of  Deuteronomy,  or 
"a  collection  of  laws  Deuteronomic  in  tone,"  was  all  of  the 
book  ?  Should  a  man  find  a  co'py  of  Shakespeare,  and,  in  writ- 
ing about  it,  make  allusions  only  to  Hamlet,  oould  w^e  argue 
that  his  copy  contained  Hamlet  alone,  or  some  part  of  Hamlet, 
or  a  drama  "having  a  close  resemblance"  to  Hamlet? 

(if)  Josiah  took  measures  to  abolish  the  worship  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies,  a  form  of  idolatry  distinct  from  the  worship  of  Baal  and 
Ashtoreth.  His  action  is  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  Deutero- 
nomic laws  (Deut.  iv.  19;  xxvii.  3).  There  alone  in  the  Pentateuch 
this  particular  form  of  idolatry  is  combated.  For,  although  it  had 
existed  in  an  earlier  time,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  infected  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel  until  late  in  the  monarchical  period  (cf.  II.  Kings 
xxi.  3,  5;    xxiii.  4,  5,  12). 

These  considerations  are  not  sufficient  to  prove  that  Deu- 
teronomy was  even  a  part  of  the  book  found ;  for  the  general 
prohibition  of  idolatry  in  the  Decalogue  was  sufficient  tO'  jus- 
tify Josiah  in  abolishing  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
if  he  had  never  seen  Deuteronomy.  And  although  it  is  true 
that  there  is  no  s}>ecific  mention  of  this  kind  of  worship  as 
being  actually  existent  in  Israel  till  late  in  the  monarchy,  the 
fact  here  admitted  by  Professor  Rjde  that  "it  had  existed  in 
an  earlier  time,"  shows  that  it  could  have  been  specifically 
condemned  in  Deuteronomy  if  the  latter  was  written  by  Moses. 
This  argument  therefore  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  date 
cf  Deuteronomy. 


12  THE  AUTHORSiHIP  OF 

{in)  Josiah  celebrated  the  feast  of  the  Passover  (II.  Kings  xxiii. 
21-23)  in  accordance  with  the  "book  of  the  law" — we  find  the  law 
of  the  Passover  laid  down  in  Deut.  xvi.  1-8. 

True,  he  kept  tlie  Passover  "as  it  is  written  in  this  book 
of  the  covenant;"  and  it  is  tiiie  that  the  law  of  the  Passover 
is  laid  down  in  the  jDassage  cited  from  Deiuteironomy  in  an 
incomplete  form;  but  it  is  also  laid  down  in  Exodus,  Leviti- 
cus and  Number's;  and  so  it  appears  again,  that  if  Defuteron- 
omy  had  not  been  even  a  part  of  the  book  found,  Josiah 
N^ould  have  don^i  precisely  what  he  did.  If  I  weire  trying 
to  prove  that  the  book  found  contained  the  rest  of  the  Pen- 
tateiuch  and  not  Deuteronomy,  see  how  the  argumeaits  of  the 
critics  would  suit  my  purpose.  Strange  that  men  with  so 
much  logical  acumen  never  turn  their  oiwn  arguments  around, 
and  look  at  them  on  the  other  side. 

It  is  true  that  Josiah  kept  the  Passover;  and  it  is  also 
said  in  the  text  that  "there  was  not  kept  such  a  passover 
from  the  days  of  the  judges  that  judged  Israel,  nor  in  all 
the  days  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the  kings  of  Judah" 
(xxiii.  22).  In  what  did  its  pre-eminence  consist  if  not,  in 
part  at  least,  in  the  strictness  of  its  compliance  with  the  law  'i 
But  if  Josiah  had  been  guided  by  Deuteronomy  alone,  he 
would  have  been  ignorant  of  some  of  the  most  essential  re- 
quirements of  the  law  respecting  this  feast.  The  passage 
just  cited  (xvi.  1-8)  is  the  only  one  in  Deuteronomy  giving 
any  part  of  this  law.  It  sihows  that  the  feast  was  to  be  ob- 
served in  the  month  Abib,  but  it  does  not  say  on  which  day 
of  the  month,  and  a  wrong  day  would  have  vitiated  the  seirv- 
ioe.  It  says  that  the  victim  should  be  of  the  flock  or  the 
herd ;  but  it  does  not  say  that  it  must  be  a  lamb  of  the  first 
year  without  blemish.  It  does  not  say  that  tihe  animal  was 
to  be  i-oasted  whole,  that  bitter  herbs  were  to  be  eaten  with 
it  as  well  as  unleavened  bread,  nor  does  it  prescribe  that  no 
bone  of  the  victim  sliould  be  broken.  It  says  nothing  at  all 
pbout  the  burnt-offerings  which  were  to  be  offered  every  day 
of  the  Passover  week.  Not  half  of  the  legal  provisions  for 
this  feast  are  raep-tioued  in  Deuteronomy,  and  yet  with  this 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  13 

book  alone  we  are  to  believe  tliat  Josiali  ke^pt  sudi  a  Pass- 
over as  had  not  been  kept  before  since  tJie  days  of  tlie  judges. 
Are  we  told,  in  reply,  tliat  those  other  provisions  are  later 
additions  to  the  law,  and  th.at  those  nijentioned  in  Deuteron- 
omy ai"e  all  that  were  at  first  observed?  If  so,  he  who  thus 
replies  is  guilty  of  the  oft-repeated  fallacy  in  criticism  of 
changing  history  to  save  an  argument,  and  at  the  same  time 
of  assiuning  as  the  basis  of  argument  that  which  is  yet  in  dis- 
pute; for  the  proposition  that  Exodus,  Leviticus  and  !N'um- 
bers  are  of  later  date  than  Deuteronomy  is  one  of  the  mat- 
ters under  discussion. 

(iv)  Josiah  expelled  wizards  and  diviners  from  the  land  in  ex- 
press fulfillment  of  "the  book  of  the  covenant"  (II.  Kings  xxiii.  24); 
we  find  the  prohibition  of  this  common  class  of  impostors  in  Ori- 
ental countries  expressed  in  strong  language  in  Deut.  xviii.   9-14. 

Here,  again,  the  author  makes  an  arg-ument  that  is  whol- 
ly inconsequential,  for  two  reasons:  First.,  if  the  book  found 
was  the  whole  Pentateuch,  this  passag'e  of  Deiuterononiy 
would  have  been  in  it;  and,  second,  if  the  Book  of  Deuteron- 
omy had  not  been  in  the  book  at  all,  the  prohibition  of  wiz- 
ards and  diviners  ^\'ould  have  been  found  in  the  part  now 
called  Leviticus,  which  prescribes  that  all  such  impostors 
must  be  stoned  to  death  (Lev.  xx.  27).  What  kind  of  proof 
is  this  that  tJie  book  was  Deuteronomy  alone? 

Professor  Ryle  was   too   thoughtful   a   writer  not   to   see 

and  feel  the  weakness  of  tJiis  mode  of  reasoning ;  consequently 

ihe  following  paragrapih  is  added  to  bolster  it  up: 

It  is  not,  of  course,  for  a  moment  denied  that  laws  dealing  with 
these  two  last  subjects  are  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch. 
But  as  in  all  four  cases  Josiah's  action  was  based  upon  "the  law," 
whatever  "the  law"  was,  it  must  have  dealt  with  "feasts"  and  with 
'wizards"  as  well  as  with  "concentration  of  worship"  and  "star-wor- 
ship."    In  the  Deuteronomic  laws  all  four  points  are  touched  upon. 

The  weakness  is  not  made  strong;  for,  if  the  book  found 
was  the  whole  Pentateuch,  it  contained  Deuteronomy  with  its 
notice  of  these  subjects,  togeither  with  the  other  parts  in  which 
all  these  subjects,  except  "concentration  of  worsliip,"  are 
dealt  with.  The  attempt  to  show  that  the  Book  was  Deu- 
teronomy alone  is  still  a  failure  as  glaring  as  befora     More- 


14  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

over,  so  fully  are  all  tliese  topics,  ^vitll  tlie  excen^tion  nainetl, 
dealt  witli  in  otJier  parts  of  the  Pen ta tench,  that  but  for  the 
latter  we  should  have  no  evidence  from  this  ]>oint  of  view 
that  DeuteTOnomy  was  in  the  book  at  all. 

The  next  argument  of  our  author  is  more  elaborate,  and 
it  turns  upon  one  of  the  titles  given  to  Josiah's  book: 

(c)  The  book  found  in  the  temple  is  designated  "the  book  of  the 
covenant"  (II.  Kings  xxiii.  2,  21),  and  it  appears  that  it  contained 
a  covenant  to  the  observance  of  which  the  king  solemnly  pledged 
himself  (ib.  3).  In  the  Pentateuch  we  find,  it  is  true,  a  mention  of 
"the  book  of  the  covenant"  (Ex.  xxiv.  7),  by  which  the  substance 
of  the  Sinaitic  legislation  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  seems  to  be  denoted.  But 
it  is  clear,  from  the  fact  that  the  section  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  contains 
no  denunciation;  from  the  fact  that  it  contains  only  the  very  brief- 
est notice  of  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  then  under  another  name, 
"the  feast  of  the  unleavened  bread"  (Ex.  xxiii.  15);  from  the  fact 
that  it  makes  no  mention  of  either  wizards  or  star-worship — that 
this  portion  of  the  Israelite  law  can  not  be  "the  covenant"  referred 
to  in  II.  Kings  xxiii.  On  the  other  hand,  an  important  section  at 
the  close  of  our  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  occupied  with  a  "covenant;" 
and  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  "a  book  of  the  law"  which  was 
also  "the  book  of  the  covenant,"  must  have  included  such  passages 
as  Deut.  xxix.  1,  "These  are  the  words  of  the  covenant  which  the 
Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of  Israel;"  verse 
9,  "Keep  therefore  the  words  of  this  covenant;"  verse  14,  "Neither 
with  you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this  oath;"  verse  21, 
"According  to  all  the  curses  of  the  covenant  that  is  written  in  the 
book  of  the  law;"  verses  24,  25,  "Even  all  the  nations  shall  say, 
Wherefore  hath  the  Lord  done  thus  unto  this  land?  .  .  .  Then  men 
shall  say.  Because  they  forsook  the  covenant  of  the  Lord"  (pp. 
51,  52). 

Unfortunately  for  this  line  of  argument,  some  of  thf^ 
most  eminent  of  Professor  Kyle's  fellow  critics  deny  that 
chapter  xxix.,  from  which  his  last  four  quotations  are  made, 
"vvas  a  part  of  the  original  document.  (See  Driver,  Commen- 
tary on  Deuteronomy,  Ixxiii.-lxxvii. ;  Addis,  Documents  of  the 
Hexateuch,  Ixxv.)  If  they  are  correct,  these  citations  amount 
to  nothing,  seeing  that  in  tJiat  case  these  verses  w^ere  never 
seen  by  Josiah,  and  they  had  thei-efoire  no  influence  on  his 
conduct.  But  they  are  do^ibtleiss  wrong.  Tlie  w'liole  Bo<-k 
of  Deuteronoany,  wnth  the  exception  of  the  last  chapter  and  a 
few  interpolated  passages  not  affecting  the  present  discussion, 
was  contained  in  the  book  found  in  the  temple;  and,  if  it  was 
there  as  a  part  of  the  ^vhole  Pentatencili,  it  may  have  been 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  15 

spoken  of  as  "the  book  of  tJie  covenant."  lint  if  Deinterouoniy 
may  have  had  this  titJe  bccanse  of  tlie  freqnejit  refereiico  in 
it  to  the  covenant  betwoon  Gocl  and  Israel,  how  mnch  nioa'e 
might  the  Pentatench  as  a  whole  ha\o  been  called  tlie  Book 
of  tlie  Covenant,  seeing  that  it  contained  all  of  Deuteronoaiiy 
and  in  addition  to  tliis  "the  book  of  the  covenant,"  expressly 
so  called,  which  is  fo^md  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.,  and  is  con- 
stantly alhideid  to  in  all  the  Pentateuch.  While,  then,  onr 
anther's  argumentation,  taking  his  own  view  of  the  conteints 
of  Josiah's  book,  would  prove  that  Deuteronomy  was  part  of 
the  book,  it  stops  there,  and  moves  not  a  hairVbreadth  toward 
showing,  as  the  necessities  of  the  theory  I'equire  him  to  shoA\, 
that  it  was  Deuteronomy  alone. 

The  next  argimient  presented  by  Professor  Kyle  I  will 
summarize,  in  order  to  save  spaca  It  is  based  on  the  fact 
that  the  author  of  Kings,  in  the  only  two  passages  in  which 
he  quotes  expressly  the  law  of  ]\Ioses,  quotes  from  Deuteron- 
omy. The  passages  ai-e  11.  Kings  xiv.  6,  where  the  quotation 
is  undoubtedly  froim  Dent.  xxiv.  16;  and  I.  Kings  ii.  3,  where 
l)avid  is  addressing  Solomon  and  says:  "Keep  the  charg'e  of 
the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his  statutes, 
and  his  commandments,  and  his  testimonies,  according  to  that 
which  is  written  in  the  law  of  j\Ioses,  tliat  thoai  may  est  pros- 
per in  all  that  thorn  doest,  and  wllithersoe^^er  thou  tumest 
thyself."  It  is  claimed  that  this  is  a  citation  from  Dent.  xvii. 
1 8-20 ;  but  if  the  reader  will  compare  the  twx)  he  Avill  find 
that  they  contain  very  few  words  in  common.  jSIoreever,  un- 
less the  author  of  Kings  has  falsified  history  in  this  passage, 
it  is  David,  and  not  himself,  who  makes  the  reference;  and 
if  it  is  in  reality  a  reference  to  Deuteronomy,  it  proves  that 
Deuteironomy  existed  in  the  days  of  David.  But  in  reality 
these  words  of  David  are  an  almost  verbatim  quotation  from 
Josh.  i.  8,  where  God  admonished  Joshua  on  his  taking  com- 
mand of  the  army  of  Israel.  David,  in  admonishing  his  son 
Solomon  wdien  about  to  be  made  king  of  Israel,  quoted  the 
words  of  the  Almighty  addressed  to  Joshua  on  a  similar  oc- 
casion.    This  does  prove  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  was  in  ex- 


16  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

istence  before  David's  deatli,  which  is  it-self  a  deathblow  to 
the  analytical  theory,  but  it  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the 
identification  of  the  book  found  by  Hilkiah. 

Professor  Ryle  also  claims  tlia.t  "in  nmnerous  character- 
istic expressions  and  phrases  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of 
Xings  shows  a  close  acquaintance  with  the  Deuteronomic  por- 
tion of  the  Pentatexich,"  and  he  cites  several  passages  in  proof. 
Then  he  argues: 

If,  therefore,  the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings  identified  the 
"law  of  Moses"  and  the  "book  of  the  law"  with  Deuteronomy,  or,  at 
least,  with  a  Deuteronomic  version  of  the  law,  we  may  nearly  take 
it  for  granted,  that,  in  his  narrative  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  when 
he  mentioned  "the  book  of  the  law"  without  further  description,  he 
must  have  had  in  his  mind  the  same  Deuteronomic  writings  with 
which  he  was   so  familiar    (p.   53), 

Yes,  "if."  But,  if  the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings 
had  in  his  possession  the  whole  of  the  Pentateaich,  as  we  ha^e 
repeatedly  shoA\'n  above,  he  would  have  written  precisely  as 
he  does,  and  tiierefore  nothing  that  he  says  can  be  logically 
Jield  as  proof  that  he  had  Deuteronomy  alone. 

At  this  point  let  it  be  carefully  observed  that,  according 
to  the  analytical  theory  itself,  the  documents  J  and  E  were 
already  in  existence,  tihe  former  containing  legislation  now 
found  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  If  we  suppose,  with  the  analytical 
critics,  that  Deuteronomy  alone  Avas  found  by  Hilkiah,  and 
that  it  alone  was  known  by  tlie  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings 
as  "the  book  of  the  law,"  what  had  become  of  these  other  two 
documents  ?  Had  they  also  been  lost  or  hidden  during  Ma- 
nasseh's  apostasy  ?  They  must  have  been,  or  Deuteronomy 
could  not  have  held  the  field  alone  as  the  law  of  God.  But 
if  they  had  thus  disappeared,  what  was  to  hinder  all  the  Pen- 
tateuch from  having  disappeared  in  like  manner?  Even, 
then,  if  the  critics  could  make  out  their  case,  that  Deutei-on- 
cmy  alone  was  Josiah's  book,  this  would  by  no  means  pre- 
clude the  supposition  that  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
v/era  in  existence,  but  hidden  in  some  other  place.  Thus  we 
see  that,  fi-om  every  point  of  view,  the  analytical  theo'ry  is  in- 
volved in  confusion  and   inconsistencies. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  17 

After  denying  that  the  Book  of  Deuterouoiuy  was  of  Mo- 
saic origin,  and  claiming  that  it  first  became  knoA\Ti  to  the 
public  in  the  eig'hteeoith.  year  of  Josiah,  the  next  task  for  the 
critics  is  to  show  us  when  the  book  was  writteai.  On  this 
point  the  radicals  only  are  able  to  speak  definitely.  They  tell 
us  that  the  composition  of  the  book  was  a  pious  fraud,  per- 
petrated by  Hilkiah  and  others  for  the  purpose  of  breaking 
down  the  worship  in  the  high  places,  and  enriching  tlie  tem- 
ple priests  by  concentrating  all  in  their  hands.  (See  Sec.  4 
[2].)  Professor  Ryle,  and  our  English  and  American  crit- 
ics, are  not  willing  to  thus  asperse  the  character  of  Hilkiah, 
but  in  trying  to  avoid  it  they  shroud  the  origin  of  the  book 
in  a  cloud  of  uncertainty.  I  quote  from  Ryle,  his  answer  to 
the  radicals: 

To  these  questions  the  scholars  who  suppose  the  composition  of 
the  book  to  have  been  the  work  of  Hilkiah  himself  and  his  friends, 
and  who  ascribe  its  discovery,  not  to  chance,  but  to  collusion,  have 
no  difficulty  in  making  reply.  Viewed  from  such  a  point  of  view, 
the  book  played  a  part  in  a  clever  intrigue  conducted  by  the 
priests  at  Jerusalem  who  aimed  at  dealing  a  finishing  stroke  to  the 
rival  worship  at  the  high  places.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  impugn 
either  the  accuracy  or  the  sincerity  of  the  historian,  who  describes 
an  incident  of  which  he  was  possibly  a  witness.  An  unprejudiced 
perusal  of  his  narrative  leaves  the  impression  that  he  has  no  shadow 
of  a  suspicion  of  the  discovery  having  been  anything  else  but  a 
fortunate  accident,  and  that,  in  the  opinion  of  those  living  at  the 
time,  the  book  was  supposed  to  have  existed  long  ago  and  to  have 
been  lost  {Canon  of  Old  Testament,  p.  54). 

This  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  answer  to  the  radicals.  It 
is  only  to  say  that  the  historian,  that  is,  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Kings,  and  "those  living  at  the  time,"  were  so  success- 
fully deceived  that  they  had  "no  shadow  of  a  suspicion"  about 
the  discovery,  and  that  they  reaiUy  supposed  the  book  to  have 
existed  long  ago.  If  they  thus  supposed,  and  if,  as  Professor 
Eyle  believes  and  tries  to  prove,  the  supposition  was  false,  it 
follows  that  wdiatever  tlie  motive  of  Hilkiali  and  others,  the 
p-eople  were  deceived  by  somebody,  and  most  successfully  de- 
ceived. In  the  argiunent  thus  far  the  radicals  clearly  have 
the  advantage. 

But  Professor  Ryle  gives  some  reasons  for  not  believing 
that  the  book  was  an  ancient  one  when  discovered : 


18  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Assuming,  then,  that  this  "Deuteronomic  'book  of  the  law'  "  was 
honestly  regarded  as  an  ancient  book  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Jo- 
siah,  we  must  take  into  consideration  the  following  facts:  (1)  That 
never  before,  on  the  occasion  of  a  religion  reform,  do  we  find,  in  the 
Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  any  appeal  to  the  authority  of  a  book; 
(2)  that,  even  in  Hezekiah's  reign,  the  attempt  to  suppress  the  high 
places  was  not,  so  far  as  history  tells  us,  supported  by  any  such 
appeal;  (3)  that  the  earlier  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah  and  Isa- 
iah (I),  give  no  certain  sign  of  having  been  influenced  by  the  Deu- 
teronomic laws   (p.   55). 

The  first  twO'  of  theise  reasons  are  evasive;  for  in  tlie  very 
brief  account  of  Hezekiali's  refoinnation,  in  which  he  put 
down  the  high  places  as  Josiah  did,  it  is  said  of  Hezekiah, 
"He  clave  to  Jehovah,  he  departed  not  from  following  him, 
but  kept  his  coinmandments  which  Jehovah  commanded 
Moses"  (II.  Kings  xviii.  6).  Here  the  king  is  said  to  have 
clung  to  Jehovah  in  effecting  this  refonn ;  he  kept  Jehovah's 
commandments  which  he  commanded  Moses;  but  because  the 
word  '^ook"  is  not  employed,  Professor  Ryle  would  have  us 
conclude  that  the  commandments  which  were  kept,  and  which 
God  had  commanded  Moses,  were  not  in  a  book.  It  is  a 
common  argument  with  believers  that  if  yoai  find  in  the  sec- 
end  century,  or  in  any  year  of  the  first  century,  quotations 
of  passages  now  found  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  they 
prove  that  the  epistle  existed  that  early.  But  no,  say  the  un- 
believers, not  unless  the  name  of  the  epistle  is  given.  Thus 
the  infidel  argument  against  the  Xew  Testament  is  taken  up 
by  "evangelical  critics,"  when  they  come  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  man  of  common  sense,  whether  a  believer  or  an 
imbeliever,  will,  so  long  as  he  reads  of  men  "keeping  the  com- 
mandments of  God  which  he  gave  ]\Ioses,"  conclude  that  they 
had  the  book  in  which  these  commandments  were  written.  As 
to  the  earlier  prophets,  they  give  abundance  of  e\'idence  that 
ihey  knew  the  ethical  teachings  which  ahound  in  tlie  Book  of 
Deuteronomy;  how  dares  Professor  Ryle  to  assume  that  they 
v;ere  not  led  to  do  so  by  knowing  the  coaiteints  of  the  book  ? 
l^othing  short  of  positive  knowledge  that  the  book  had  not 
been  written  in  their  day,  Avould  justify  such  an  assumption ; 
and  yet  the  assumption  is  used  as  an  argument  to  prove  the 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  19 

fact  001  Avliicli  it  dei>eiids.      This  is  too  glaring  a  fault  in  logic 
to  be  excusable  in  such  an  author. 

A  consciousness  of  weakness  is  betrayed  at  this  ix)int  by 
the  professor's  next  seaitence,  in  which  he  says: 

Of  course,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,  ancient  laws  are 
copiously  incorporated  in  Deuteronomy,  and  the  mere  mention  of  in- 
stitutions and  customs  which  are  spoken  of  in  Deuteronomy,  does  not 
prove  the  existence  of  the  book  itself. 

This  is  true;  but  it  is  not  in  j)oint;  for  he  is  trying  to 
prove  that  because  tlie  "svord  ''book"  is  not  used  in  connection 
with  them,  the  book  did  not  exist.  This  is  an  argument  from 
silence;  and  lest  his  I'eaders  should  disregard  it  on  that  ac- 
count, our  author  next  attempts  to  bolster  up  this  species  of 
argiiment : 

The  force  of  the  argument  from  silence,  however,  will  at  once 
be  appreciated  when  the  pronounced  influence  of  the  Deuteronomic 
writings  upon  the  style  of  authors  to  whom  the  Book  of  Deuteron- 
omy was  well  known — e.  g.,  Books  of  Kings,  Jeremiah  and  Zepha- 
niah — is  fully  taken  account  of.  There  is  nothing  parallel  to  it  in 
the  earlier  Hebrew  literature.  The  inference  is  obvious;  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy,  in  the  earlier  period,  was  either  not  yet  composed 
or  not  yet  known.  But,  if  written,  could  it  have  failed  to  escape  the 
notice  of  Amos,  Hosea  and  Isaiah,  and  to  leave  on  them  something 
of  the  mark   it  made  on  later  literature?    (p.   55). 

This  argument  assumes  that  there  was  nothing,  except  its 
recent  origin,  to  give  Deuteronomy  the  sj>ecial  influence  which 
it  exerted  over  later  writers.  Without,  then,  pausing  to 
show,  as  we  can,  that  the  statement  of  this  influence  is  mag- 
nified, it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  sihow  that  this  influence  can 
be  otherwise  accounted  for.  The  fact  that  tlie  rediscovery  of 
the  book  after  it  had  been  lost  to  sight  so  long,  and  the  fact 
that  its  teaching,  whether  it  was  alone  or  in  company  with 
the  otlier  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  Avas  the  chief  instrimient 
in  bringing  about  the  most  famous  religious  reformation,  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  necessarily  brought  it  into  a  relative  in- 
fluence which  it  had  not  exerted  before.  There  is  a  paraillel 
in  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
the  Galatians  during  tlie  life  of  Lutlier  and  aftenvard.  Were 
there  any  gi-ound  foi*  raising  a  doubt  whetlier  Luther  and  his 
generation  possessed  all  of  the  books  of  the  l^ew  Testament, 


20  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

01"  whether  tliese  two  epistles  had  not  been  recently  wi'itten  by 
some  theologian  in  the  name  of  Paul,  how  readily  coiild  crit- 
ics of  tlie  modem  school  take  up  the  cry,  and  demand,  Why, 
it'  tliose  two  epistles  existed  before  Lutbei*'s  day,  did  they  not 
influence  the  style  and  theology  of  earlier  writers,  as  they 
certainly  did  those  of  a  later  date?  The  answer  would  be, 
There  was  a  special  reason  in  the  Lutheran  Reformation  in 
which  salvation  by  works  was  denied,  and  salvation  by  faith 
insisted  on,  to  give  new  prominence  to  the  two  epistles  in 
which  the  latter  doctrine  is  especially  emphasized.  Just  so, 
the  Josian  reformation  was  brought  about  chiefly  by  the 
teaching  and  tlie  warnings  of  Deuteronomy,  and  this  neces- 
sarily drew  to  this  book,  rather  than  to  any  other  then  writ- 
ten, the  attention  of  writers  in  the  next  generation.  So,  then, 
this  famous  argTimemt,  which  is  a  favorite  with  all  classes  of 
destructive  critics,  proves  to  be  faidty  in  the  fact  that  it  ig- 
nores completely  the  real  cause  of  the  fact  on  which  it  is 
based. 

In  order  to  fix  the  time  previous  to  which  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  cooild  not  have  been  written,  Professor  Ryle  in- 
troduces a  passage  from  Isaiah  which  has  been  made  to  figure 
conspicuously  in  the  discussion  of  this  question.  He  argues 
thus: 

One  well-known  passage  (Isa.  xix.  19)  should  be  sufficient  to 
disprove  the  possibility  of  that  prophet's  acquaintance  with  the  Deute- 
ronomic  law:  "In  that  day  there  shall  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the 
midst  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  [mazzebah]  at  the  border 
thereof  to  the  Lord."  Isaiah  could  hardly  have  said  this  if  he  had 
been  acquainted  with  the  prohibition  of  Deut.  xvi.  22,  "Thou  shalt 
not  set  up  a  pillar  Imazzebah] ;  which  the  Lord  thy  God  hateth.' 
Nor  is  the  reply  satisfactory  which  says  that  Isaiah  refers  to  the 
soil,  not  of  Palestine,  but  of  Egypt;  for  the  prophet  is  contemplating 
a  time  when  all  the  world  should  be  subject  to  the  "law"  of  Israel's 
God.  It  would  appear,  therefore,  that  the  Deuteronomic  "book  of 
the  law"  was  not  known  to  Isaiah  or  his  prophetic  predecessors,  and 
could  hardly  have  been  written  before  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  When, 
in  addition  to  this,  the  marked  characteristics  of  his  style  correspond 
to  those  which  are  found  in  the  Hebrew  writing  of  the  sixth  and 
latter  part  of  the  seventh  century  B.  C,  it  is  the  most  natural  con- 
clusion that  the  literary  framework  of  the  book  is  not  to  be  placed 
earlier  than  the  close  of  Isaiah's  ministry   (circ.  690  B.  C). 


^  THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  21 

111  this  argument  the  author  starts  out  as  if  there  was 
no  possibility  of  his  being  mistaken.  The  passage  in  Isaiah 
''should  be  suthcient  to  disprove  the  possibility"  of  his  ac- 
quaint-aiice  with  Deuteronomy.  But  in  his  next  sentence  he 
lowers  his  tone  and  says,  ''Isaiah  could  hardly  have  said  this 
if  he  had  been  acquainted  with  the  prohibition  of  Deut.  xvi. 
22."  And  his  conclusion  is  based  on  the  Litter  assertion,  and 
not  on.  the  former.  Leaving  off  the  question  of  possibility, 
he  says,  "Deuteronomy  could  hardly  have  been  written  before 
the  reig-n  of  Hezekiah."  Such  a  play  of  diminuendo  as  the 
argument  advances  is  clear  evidence  that  the  man  who  framed 
it  began  with  a  confidence  which  he  could  not  maintain  to 
the  end. 

But  let  us  see  whether,  if  Isaiah  had  known  intimately 
the  prohibition  of  the  mazzebah  in  Deuteronomy,  he  could 
still  have  predicted  the  erection  of  one  at  the  border  of  Egypt. 
The  obvious  anstwer  is.  If  it  were  revealed  to  him  that  there 
"\\ould  be  one,  of  course  he  could  have  predicted  it.  But  it  is 
assumed  that  he  predicted  it  with  approval,  which  he  could 
not  have  done  had  lie  known  Denteronomy.  The  prophet  cer- 
tainly does  speak  of  the  event  as  indicating  a  change  in  Egypt 
lor  the  better.  Taking  into  view  the  immediate  context,  he 
says:  "In  that  day  there  shall  be  five  cities  in  the  land  of 
Egypt  that  speak  the  language  of  Canaan,  and  s^^^ar  to  Jeho- 
vah of  hosts;  one  shall  be  called,  The  city  of  destruction.  In 
that  day  there  shall  be  an  altar  in  the  midst  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  the  border  thereof  to  Jehovah.  And 
it  shall  be  for  a  sign  and  for  a  witness  unto  Jehovah  of  hosts 
in  the  land  of  Egypt;  for  they  shall  cry  unto  Jehovah  be- 
cause of  the  oppressors,  and  he  shall  send  them  a  saviour,  and 
a  defender,  and  he  shall  deliver  them."  This  clearly  indi- 
cates a  time  when  Egypt  should  be  sore  oppressed,  and 
should  turn  to  Jehovah  for  help,  offering  sacrifice  to  him, 
and  setting  up  a  pillar  on  the  border  of  the  land  to  honor 
him.  Egypt  was  a  land  of  pillars,  or  obelisks,  as  the  word 
is  rendered  on  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  all  erected 
in  honor  of  their  gxDds,  and  inscribed  on  their  sides  with  the 


22  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

praises  of  tlio  god  whom  oaoh  sought  to  honor.  Xcxw,  if,  in 
a  time  of  distress,  seeing  the  ini}x>teaicy  of  all  her  gods,  Egypt 
should  ei'ect  an  obelisk  in  honor  of  Jehovah,  the  act  would  be 
a  happy  move  in  the  right  direction,  no  matter  how  abomi- 
nable such  a  pillar  might  be  beside  a  Jewish  altar.  She  was 
«lso  to  erect  an  altar  to  JehovaJi.  Suppose  that  on  this  altar 
they  offered  the  sacrifices  to  which  they  were  accustomed,  but 
which  would  have  defiled  a  Jewish  altar,  and  the  text  indi- 
cates nothing  to  the  contrary ;  still  Egypt  would  be  congratu- 
lated for  doing  even  this  with  the  purpose  of  honoring  Jeho- 
vah. Isaiah,  then,  could  have  written  all  that  he  did  mth  a 
iull  knorwledge  of  what  is  said  about  the  mazzehah  in  Deu- 
teronomy. 

Let  us  now  give  more  partioular  attention  to  the  prohibi- 
tion in  Deuteronomy,  and  see  whether,  in  the  argTiment  under 
consideration,  it  is  properly  interpreted.  The  subject  of  the 
mazzehah  is  mentioned  twTice  in  this  part  of  tlie  book ;  first  in 
xii.  2,  3,  where  it  is  said,  "Ye  shall  surely  destroy  all  the  places, 
wherein  the  nations  which  ye  shall  possess  served  their  gods, 
upon  the  high  mountains,  and  upon  the  hills,  and  under  eveiy 
green  tree:  and  ye  shall  break  down  their  altars,  and  dash  in 
pieces  their  pillars  [mazzebahs],  and  bum  their  Asherim  with 
fire."  Now,  this  portion  of  Deuteronomy  has  the  form  of  a 
discourse;  and  whether  it  was  delivered  by  Moses  as  the  text 
affirms,  or  written  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  and  put  into  the 
lips  of  Moses  by  imagination,  the  s|>eaker,  real  or  imaginary, 
after  uttering  the  words  just  quoted,  uttered,  in  less  than  ten 
minutes  later,  these  words:  "Thou  shalt  not  plant  thee  an 
Asherah  of  any  kind  of  tree  beside  the  altar  of  Jehovah  thy 
God,  which  th(Xi  shalt  make  thee.  Neither  shalt  thou  set  up 
a  pillar  [^mazzebali']  ;  which  Jehovah  thy  God  hateth"  (xvi.  21, 
22).  Can  we  imagine  that  there  was  no  connection  of  thought 
between  the  two  prohibitions?  Is  it  not  morally  certain  that 
the  Asherah  and  the  pillar  in  both  passages  mean  the  same  ? 
And,  if  so,  are  we  not  compelled  by  the  laws  of  interpreitation, 
to  understand  that,  in  tJie  latter  passage  as  in  the  former,  the 
prohibition  is  against  such  mazzehahs  as  the  Canaanites  had 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  23 

used,  and  not  against  such  structures  when  used  legitimately  i 
The  answer  which  this  question  demands  is  implied  in  the  very 
wording  of  the  text ;  for  the  W'Ords,  "a  pillar  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  hateth/'  lea,ve  rooan  for  the  supposition  that  there  \vere 
pillars  which  God  did  not  hate. 

That  thei-e  were  pillars  (mazzehahs)  Avhieh  Jehovah  did  not 
hate,  Isaiah  knew,  and  the  author  of  Defuteronomy  knew.  For 
be  it  remembered,  that  even  if  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was 
unknown  to  Isaiah,  the  documents  J  and  E,  and  the  combined 
document  JE,  were  known  both  to  him  and  the  supposed  author 
of  Deuteronomy.  This  the  analytical  theory  teaches.  But  in 
JE  w^e  find  several  statements  about  the  erection  of  pillars 
(mazzebahs)  by  Jacob  at  Bethel,  at  Mizpah,  and  at  Kachers 
grave  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  22;  xxxi.  45,  51,  52;  xxxv.  14,  20). 
Moreover,  JE  represents  God  as  approving  the  erection  of  this 
first  mazzehah  in  saying  to  Jacob,  "I  am  the  God  of  Bethel, 
where  thou  anointedst  a  pillar,  w'here  thou  vowedst  a  vow  unto 
me :  now  arise,  get  thee  out  of  this  land,  and  return  to  the  land 
of  thy  nativity"  (xxxi.  13).  In  view  of  this  fact,  Isaiah  must 
have  known  that  there  Avere  mazzebahs  which  God  approved ; 
and  the  supposed  author  of  Deuteronomy  knew  it  as  well.  Is 
it  credible,  then,  that  the  latter  put  into  the  mouth  of  Moses, 
speaking  for  God,  a  prohibition  of  adl  mazzebahs?  If  not,  then 
we  must  believe  that  the  prohibition  in  question  was  against 
such  mazzebahs  as  the  Canaanites  had  in  use. 

Finally,  there  is  a  consideration  suggested  by  the  Deute- 
ronomic  prohibition  which  has  been  entirely  overlooked  by  de- 
structive critics,  and  yet  it  completely  refutes  their  theory  as  to 
the  date  of  the  book.  Here  is  a  book  which  forbids  absolutely 
the  erection  of  an  altar  to  Jehovah  other  than  the  one  at  his 
chosen  place  of  worship ;  a  book  written  with  this  as  one  of  its 
primary  purposes,  if  not  the  chief  purpose;  yet  in  the  midst 
of  it  we  read  these  words:  ''Thou  shalt  not  plant  thee  an 
Asherah  of  any  kind  of  tree  beside  the  altar  of  Jehovah  thy  God 
wdiich  thou  shalt  make  thee."  Notice  the  future  tense:  "The 
altar  of  Jehovah  thy  God  which  thou  shalt  make  thee."  The 
altar  in  question  was  yet  to  be  made  when  the  book  was  written. 


24  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

If  Moses  wrote  the  book,  this  is  what  lie  would  have  said :  for 
the  altar  sjx>kcn  of  was  that  in  Jerusalem,  or  both  that  and  the 
earlier  altar  at  Shiloh.  The  Jerusalem  altar  was,  too,  accord- 
ing to  hypothesis,  the  one  at  which  the  authoi*  of  Deaitei'onomy 
sought  to  concentrate  the  worship  as  the  only  altar  of  Jehovah. 
This  altar  had  been  made  hundreds  of  years  before  this  hypo- 
thetical date  of  Deuteronomy,  yet  the  writer  speaks  of  it  as  "the 
altar  of  Jehovah  thy  God  which  thou  shalt  make  thee."  What 
clearer  demonstration  could  we  have  that  the  book  was  written 
before  the  altar  in  Jerusalem  was  made;  that  is,  before  the  reign 
of  Solomon  ?  And  if  it  was  befoa-e  t-he  reign  of  Solomon,  there 
can  be  no  reason  for  giving  it  a  date  later  than  Moses.  This 
argument  can  be  set  aside  only  by  charging  the  author  with 
fraud  in  putting  these  words  in  the  mouth  of  Moses. 

I  have  dealt  thus  elaborately  with  this  argument,  from  the 
consideration  that  it  is  made  us©  of  by  all  the  destructive  critics 
without  an  apparent  suspicion  that  any  fallacy  conld  be  found 
in  it.  The  result  illustrates  the  importance  of  the  closest  scru- 
tinv  of  every  argument  and  every  passage  of  Scripture  before 
concluding  that  it  contains  anything  inimical  to  the  Bible's  own 
accoimt  of  itself. 

If  it  is  true,  as  asserted  by  Professo'r  Ryle,  that  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy,  when  discovered  by  Hilkiah  the  priest,  "was 
the  first  instance  of  a  book  which  was  regarded  by  all,  king, 
priests,  prophets,  and  people  alike,  as  invested  not  only  with 
sanctity,  but  also  with  supreme  authority  in  all  matters  of  relig- 
ion and  conduct,"  it  becomes  a  matter  of  supreme  importance 
to  account  in  some  satisfactory  way  for  such  a  reception  of  the 
book.  But  even  his  strong  statement  of  the  case  falls  sihort  of 
the  reality.  The  book  was  not  only  regarded  as  invested  wdth 
sanctity  and  supreme  authority,  but  it  was  regarded  as  having 
come  from  Moses ;  and  it  was  this  last  consideration  which  gave 
it  its  sanctity  and  authority.  This  must  all  be  accounted  for 
in  order  to  make  the  critical  theory  of  its  origin  credible.  The 
necessity  of  this  can  not  have  escaped  the  minds  of  the  acute 
scholars  who  have  advocated  this  theory,  and  one  would  expect 
to  find  in  their  writings  some  plausible  if  not  convincing  att^empt 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  25 

at  an  answer.  But  on  this  point  I  have  searched  their  writings 
in  vain.  Professor  Ryle  shows  clearly  that  lie  felt  the  need  of 
sucii  an  explanation,  and  through  several  pages  of  his  Canon 
he  feels  around  the  question  withovit  fairly  facing  it.  As  you 
read  through  tliese  pages  in  search  of  it,  you  are  inclined  to 
exclaim  alternately,  "Now  I  see  it,  now  I  don't  see  it."  The 
nearest  he  comes  to  it  is  on  page  60,  where  he  formally  raises 
the  question  onl}^  to  immediately  rim  away  from  it.  Having 
fixed  the  date  of  its  composition  in  the  closing  years  of  Heze- 
kiah's  reign,  he  says : 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  understand  how  such  a  work,  during  the  re- 
actionary reign  of  Manasseh,  became  lost  to  view.  That  its  acci- 
dental discovery  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  King  Josiah  produced  so 
astonishing  an   effect  can   well   be   imagined. 

Of  course  it  can.  We  can  easily  imagine  almost  anything. 
But  we  have  no  need  to  imagine  it;  it  is  plainly  told  in  the  text, 
and  nobody  calls  the  record  in  question.  \\Tiat  we  desire  is  not 
to  imagine  it,  but  to  account  for  it.  And  how  does  our  learned 
author  do  this  ?    Here  is  what  f oJlows : 

The  evils  which  the  prophet  or  writers  had  sought  to  combat, 
had  grown  in  intensity  during  the  seventy  or  eighty  years  which 
had  elapsed.  The  reform,  so  necessary  before,  culminating  in  the 
abolition  of  the  high  places,  which  Hezekiah  had  failed  to  carry  out 
successfully,  had  now  been  long  delayed;  the  difficulty  of  effecting  it 
must  have  become  proportionately  greater;  the  flagrant  indulgence 
in  open  idolatry,  under  the  patronage  of  the  court,  had  raised  yet 
more  serious  obstacles  in  the  path  of  religious  restoration.  In  a  sin- 
gle year  "the  book  of  the  law"  caused  the  removal  of  every  obstacle. 
The  laws  it  contained  must,  many  of  them,  have  been  familiar,  by 
tradition,  long  usage,  and  written  codes.  But  in  this  book,  laws, 
old  and  new  alike,  lived  in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  and  glowed  with 
the  spirit  of  prophecy.  The  tone  in  which  the  law  was  here  ex 
pounded  to  the  people  was  something  new.  It  marked  the  close  ot 
one  era;  it  heralded  the  beginning  of  another.  It  rang  sharp  and 
clear  in  the  lull  that  so  graciously  intervened  before  the  tempest 
of  Babylonian  invasion.  The  enthusiasm  it  aroused  in  the  young 
king  communicated  itself  to  the  people.  The  discovery  of  "the  book 
of  the  law"  procured  at  once  the  abolition  of  the  high  places.  The 
book  was  recognized  as  a  divine  gift,  and  lifted,  though  but  for  a 
passing  moment,  the  conception  of  the  nation's  religion  above  the 
routine  of  the  priesthood's  traditional   worship. 

I  search  in  vain,  through  all  this,  for  even  a  semblance  of 
an  answer  to  the  question,  How  can  the  i-eoeption  accorded  the 


26  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

book  be  accounted  for?  If  Hezekiah's  attempt  to  abolish  the 
high  places  had  failed,  this  would  make  it  only  the  more  diffi- 
cult for  this  book  to  cause  their  removal;  and  this  the  author 
freely  admits.  He  also  admits,  or,  rather,  he  telils  us  in  plain 
words,  that  the  indulgence  in  open  idolatry  under  the  patronage 
of  the  couii:  had  raised  "yet  moi-e  serious  oibstacles"  in  the  path 
of  religious  restoration.  This  only  makes  more  impeirative  the 
demand  for  the  explanation  which  is  called  for,  but  not  given. 

Next  we  are  told  what  we  kncAv  before,  that  "in  a  single 
year  'the  book  of  the  law'  caused  the  removal  of  every  obstacle;" 
and  this  only  intensifies  our  desire  to  know  how  it  succeeded 
in  doing  so.  l^ext  we  are  toild  that  "the  laws  it  contained  must, 
many  of  them,  have  been  familiar,  by  tradition,  long  usag'e,  and 
written  codes."  But,  if  they  were,  why  was  the  king  so  aston- 
ished at  them,  and  why  did  he  rend  his  clothes  ?  "But,"  con- 
tinues our  author,  "in  this  book,  laws,  old  and  new  alike,  lived 
in  the  spirit  of  Moses,  and  glowed  with  the  vehemence  of  proph- 
ecy." Yes ;  they  not  only  lived  in  tlie  spirit  of  Moses,  but  they 
professedly  came  from  the  very  lips  of  Moses ;  and  the  question 
is,  How  were  king  and  priests  and  prophets  and  people  alike  led 
to  believe  that  they  came  from  Moses,  when  many  of  them,  and 
especially  the  most  objectionable  of  them  all,  had  never  been 
heard  of  before  ?  This  is  the  question  to  be  answered,  and  the 
author's  attempt  only  heaps  up,  statement  by  statement,  the  ob- 
stacles in  the  way  of  a  satisfactory  answer. 

Again  he  says,  "The  tone  in  which  the  law  was  here 
expounded  to  the  people  was  something  new."  But  it  claimed 
to  be  as  old  as  Moses;  how,  then,  could  it  be  something  new? 
And  if  it  was  something  new,  why  did  neither  king,  nor  priest, 
nor  prophet,  nor  one  of  the  people,  see  in  the  fact  that  it  was 
new,  incontestable  proof  that  it  was  not  spoken  by  Moses  ?  But, 
"it  marked  the  close  of  one  era;  it  heralded  the  beginning  of 
another."  Suppose  it  did ;  how  could  all  parties  know  this,  and 
why  should  tliis  have  made  them  think  that  the  book  came  from 
Moses  ?  But,  "it  rang  sharp  and  clear  in  the  lull  that  so  gra- 
ciously intervened  before  the  tempest  of  Babylonian  invasion;" 
and  "the  enthusiasm  it  aroused  in  the  yoimg  king  communicated 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  2? 

itself  to  tlie  j^eopla"  Yes;  but  why  did  it  arouse  any  entliusi- 
asm  in  tlie  young  king?  And  what  if  it  did  ring  in  that  lull  i! 
If  the  king  kad  suspected  tJiat  the  book  was  recently  written, 
would  it  have  aroused  in  him  this  enthusiasm  ?  Would  it  have 
made  him  rend  his  clothes  ?  Finally  we  are  told  tliat  ''the  book 
was  recognized  as  a  divine  gift,  and  lifted,  though  but  foa*  a  pass- 
ing moment,  the  conception  of  the  nation's  religion  above'  the 
priesthood's  traditional  worship."  Of  coiirse,  the  book  was 
received  as  a  divine  gift;  but  the  question  is,  Why?  And  this 
question  is  not  answered.  Ro'bertson  Smith  attempts  an  answer 
in  these  words : 

The  authority  that  lay  behind  Deuteronomy  was  the  power  of 
the  prophetic  teaching  which  half  a  century  of  persecution  had  not 
been  able  to  suppress   (0.  T.,  363). 

But  the  "prophetic  teaching,"  according  to  hypothesis,  and 
according  to  Robertson  Smith  himself,  had  been  absolutely  silent 
about  the  restriction  of  sacrifice  to  a  single  altar,  and  hostile  to 
sacrifices  in  general.  This  is,  then,  no  aiis.wer  to  the  question. 
On  the  critical  hypothesis  as  to  the  origin  of  the  book,  may  we 
not  hei'6  venture  the  assertion  that  it  can  not  be  answ^ei-ed  ?  In 
view  of  the  utter  failure  of  the  ablest  critics  thus  far  to  find  an 
adequate  answer,  may  we  not  safely  conclude  that  one  will  never 
be  found  ? 

There  is  another  O'bstacle  in  the  way  of  the  answer  demanded 
which  is  insuperable,  and  which  has  been  created  by  the  critics 
themselves.  They  teU  us  that  the  documents  J  and  E  had  been 
written  some  hundred  years  or  more  before  the  discovery  by  Hil- 
kiah,  and  they  tell  us  that  the  laws  of  tlie  "book  of  the  covenant" 
embodied  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  were  preserved  in  J,  and  had 
come  down  from  Moses.  They  tell  us  that  in  that  book  the 
law  guaranteed  to  every  Hebrew  the  right  tO'  build  an  altar  and 
offer  his  sacrifice  at  any  spot  which  he  might  choose — that  this 
had  been  God's  recognized  and  well-knoAvn  law  doAvn  to^  the  very 
day  in  which  Hilkiah's  discovery  was  made.  But  here  a  newly 
written  book  of  the  law  is  produced,  which  contradicts  all  this, 
and  teaches  that  it  is  a  sin  to  offer  sacrifices  on  any  other  altar 
than  the  one  in  Jerusalem.     And  when  this  newly  written  law. 


28  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

contradicting  what  all  the  i)eople  had  hitherto  received  as  the 
law  of  God,  was  read  to  the  king,  he  rent  his  clothes ;  and  when 
he  read  it  to  the  people,  they  entered  into  a  covenant  with  him 
to  tear  down  all  of  the  altars  at  which  they  had  hithertO'  wor- 
shiped according  to  God's  undisputed  law.  How  can  this  be 
f  accounted  for  ?  They  obey  the  new  law  because  they  are  led  to 
believe  that  it  came  from  Moses,  and  they  reject  the  old  law 
though  they  believed  that  it  also  came  from  Moses.  Did  they 
think  that  Moses  contradicted  himself  ?  If  so,  why,  of  the  two 
contradictory  laws,  did  they  accept  the  one  newly  brought  to 
light,  the  one  never  heard  of  before,  and  the  one  most  obnoxious 
to  their  cherished  habits  ?  Who  will  answer  these  questions,  or 
who  will  show,  if  they  remain  unanswered,  that  the  new  theory 
of  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy  is  worth  the  paper  it  is  printed 
on  ?  I  knew  a  preacher  who  became  insane  and  imagined  that 
he  was  made  of  glass.  He  would  not  allow  you  to  shake  hands 
with  him — only  a  gentle  touch.  And  when  he  took  a  seat  in  a 
wooden  chair  he  was  very  careful  lest  he  should  break  himself 
to  pieces.  This  critical  theory  of  Deuteronomy  reminds  me  of 
him.      Wherever  you  shake  it,  it  breaks.^ 

§2.  Evidence  from  Conflict  with  Previous 
Legislation. 

It  is  held  by  those  who  advocate  the  late  date  of  Deuteron- 
omy, that  the  previously  existing  law  contained  in  the  book  JE, 
which  was  really  given  by  Moses,  if  Moses  gave  any  law  at  all, 
permitted  the  people  to  erect  altars  wherever  they  chose,  and 
that  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  was  intended  to  abolish  that  priv- 
ilege. Sacrifice  in  the  high,  places  had  been  perfectly  legitimate 
under  this  law,  but  it  was  now  to  be  abolished  by  force  of  this 
newly  discovered  "book  of  the  law."  By  Eobertson  Smith  the 
position  is  stated  in  the  following  words : 

'  For  the  arguments  of  other  authors  on  the  evidence  discussed 
in  this  section,  see  Driver,  Int.,  86-89;  Robertson  Smith,  0.  T.,  256f., 
363;  Addis,  D.  of  H.,  Ixxv.;  Andrew  Harper,  Com.  Deut.,  29-33;  Prin- 
cipal Douglas,  Lex  M.,  63-67;  Stanley  Leathes,  Lex  .M.,  443ff.;  Robert 
Sinker,  Lex  M.,  462ff.,  480;  James  Robertson,  Early  Rel.  of  Israel,  421; 
Bissell,  0.  and  S.  of  Pent.,  23. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  29 

The  central  difference  between  the  Deuteronomic  code,  on  which 
Josiah  acted,  and  the  code  of  the  First  Legislation,  lies  in  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  is  the  only  legitimate  sanctuary. 
The  legislator  in  Deuteronomy  expressly  puts  forth  this  ordinance 
as  an  innovation:  "Ye  shall  not  do,  as  we  do  here  this  day,  every 
man  whatever  is  right  in  his  own  eyes" — Deut.  xii.  8   (0.  T.,  p.  253). 

A  little  reflection  will  show  that  this  positioin,  though  put 
forward  as  if  it  were  unquestio-nable,  can  not  be  maintained. 
In  the  first  place,  if  such  were  the  facts  in  the  case,  the  friends 
and  supporters  of  the  high  places,  who  are  admitted  to  have 
been  exceedingly  reluctant  to  give  them  up,  could  and  would 
have  successfully  answered:  We  are  not  doing  whatsoever  is 
right  in  our  own  eyes ;  but  that  which  Jehovah  ooir  God  gave  us 
permission  to  do  by  the  hand  of  Moses.  This  new  law,  there- 
fore, pretending  to  come  from  the  same  Mo«es,  a  law  which  no 
Israelite  has  ever  heard  of  before,  is  false  and  spurious.  We 
will  have  none  of  it.  They  could  have  said,  We  have  the  old 
Mosaic  law  written  in  our  sacred  books ;  it  is  a  part  of  the  book 
of  the  covenant  given  by  God  to  our  fathers;  and  it  is  also 
written  with  indelible  letters  in  our  ancestral  customs ;  and  we 
shall  not  be  deceived  into  the  belief  that  this  hitherto  unknown 
book,  with  its  innovation,  has  also  been  our  law  from  the  begin- 
ning. What  answer  could  Josiah,  or  any  of  his  officers  sent  out 
to  tear  down  the  altars  on  the  high  places,  have  made  to  this? 
They  would  have  been  as  dumb  as  the  stones  of  the  altars  which 
they  destroyed. 

In  the  second  place,  the  supposed  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
could  not,  without  barefaced  folly,  have  put  the  words  of  this 
restrictive  law  into  the  mouth  of  Moses.  He  would  have  had 
Moses  legislating  against  a  further  continuance  of  worship 
which  as  yet  had  no  existence  in  Israel ;  for  it  certainly  had  no 
existence  among  them  while  Moses  was  still  alive.  When,  then, 
Hilkiah's  book  was  presented  to  the  first  man  of  sense  on  his 
high  place,  he  would  have  responded :  "Do  you  think  I  am  a 
fool,  to  give  up  my  chosen  place  of  worshiping  the  God  of  our 
fathers  in  compliance  with  a  book  pretending  that  Moses  for- 
bade our  fathers  to  continue  in  the  practice,  when,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  our  fathers  had  never  engaged  in  it?"     The  pretense 


30  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

■would  strike  them  very  iiiiicli  as  if  some  unscrupulous  politician 
should  now  publish  a  copy  of  Washington's  farewell  address 
with  a  warning-  in  it  against  the  adoption  of  the  Australian 
secret  ballot  in  our  elections.  Such  are  the  absurdities,  unper- 
ceived  by  themselves,  in  which  critics  become  involved  when 
they  pennit  their  zeal  in  support  of  a  theory  to  run  away  with 
their  better  reason. 

If  it  should  be  asked,  in  response  to  tlie  preceding,  what 
practice  was  it  that  Moses  had  reference  to  when  he  said,  ''Ye 
shall  not  do  as  Vv'e  do  here  this  day,"  the  answer  is,  first,  he  cer- 
tainly did  not  mean  what  the  men  of  Josiah's  day,  seven  hun- 
dred years  later,  would  be  doing,  but  something  that  men  were 
doing  in  his  own  day.  Second,  when  Moses  spoke,  the  people 
addressed  had  only  a  few  weeks  before  been  guilty  of  wander- 
ing off  with  the  women  of  Moab  and  engaging  with  them  in  the 
worship  of  Baal-peor  (Num.  xxv.)  ;  and  this  piece  of  self-will 
in  worship,  which  had  cost  the  lives  of  twenty-four  thousand 
men,  was  fresh  in  their  memories.  Thus  we  see  that  if  the  law 
was  given  by  Moses,  all  that  is  said  about  it  agrees  with  the  facts 
in  the  case ;  and  if  it  was  not,  everything  is  thrown  into  confu- 
sion and  absurdity. 

Professor  Driver's  statement  of  the  position  is  not  strongCT 
than  that  of  Professor  Smith.    Here  it  is : 

The  law  of  Deuteronomy  thus  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
Israelitish  religion;  it  springs  from  an  age  when  the  old  law  (Ex. 
XX.  24),  sanctioning  an  indefinite  number  of  local  sanctuaries,  had 
been  proved  to  be  incompatible  with  purity  of  worship;  it  marks 
the  final,  the  most  systematic  effort  made  by  the  prophets  to  free  the 
public  worship  of  Jehovah  from  heathen  accretions  (Com.  Deut., 
138). 

This  is  a  more  cautious  statement  than  that  of  Robertson 
Smith,  but  it  is  not  less  objectionable.  It  represents  a  law 
given  by  divine  wisdom — for  Driver  recognizes  the  divine  origin 
of  the  old  book  of  the  covenant — as  proving  to  be  "incompatible 
with  purity  of  worship."  This  is  an  absurdity.  It  also  repre- 
sents the  king  and  the  people  as  promptly  abandoning  a  fonn 
of  worship  that  was  lawful,  the  law  for  which  had  been  given 
by  God  through  Moses,  and  to  which  the  masses  of  the  people 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  31 

had  become  devotedly  attached,  on  tlio  deiiiiuid  of  a  new  law, 

pretending  to  come  from  Moses,  but  which  had  really  never  been 

heard  of  before.    No  people  in  the  history  of  the  world  was  ever 

thus  deluded.    The  incredibility  of  such  a  deception  is  increased 

Avhen  we  add  that  never  afterward  was  any  question  raised  in 

Israel  as  to  the  Mosaic  origin  of  this  new  law.  If  the  hypothesis 

is  accepted,  it  reverses  the  notable  saying  of  President  Lincoln, 

that  "you  can  fool  some  of  tlie  people  all  the  time,  and  all  of 

the  people  part  of  the  time,  but  you  can  not  fool  all  the  j)eople 

all  the  time." 

Both  of  these  scholars,  in  common  witli  all  the  critics  of 

their  class,  assume,  as  if  it  were  an  undisputed  fact,  that  the 

first  legislation  permitted  a  multiplicity  of  altars  to  be  erected, 

and  sacrifice  to  be  offered  on  them  wherever  it  suited  the  good 

pleasure  of  the  worshipeTS ;  and  for  this  reason  they  claim  that 

Avorship  on  the  high  places,  ''on  every  high  hill  and  under  every 

green  tree,"  was  legitimate  until  the  publication  of  the  law  in 

Deuteronomy,  which  limited  all  sacrifices  to  the  single  altar  in 

Jerusalem.     The  question  whether  this  assumption  is  trne  or 

not  can  be  settled  only  by  an  appeal  to  the  terms  of  the  law 

itself.     We  quote  it  in  full : 

And  Jehovah  said  unto  Moses,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  Ye  yourselves  have  seen  that  I  have  talked  with  you 
from  heaven.  Ye  shall  not  make  other  gods  with  me;  gods  of  silver. 
or  gods  of  gold,  ye  shall  not  make  unto  you.  An  altar  shalt  thou 
make  unto  me,  and  shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt  offerings,  thy 
peace  offerings,  thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen:  in  every  place  where  1 
record  my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  I  will  bless  thee.  And 
if  thou  make  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build  it  of  hewn 
stones:  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  thou  hast  polluted  it. 
Neither  shalt  thou  go  up  by  steps  unto  mine  altar,  that  thy  naked- 
ness be  not  discovered  thereon"   (Ex.   xx.  22-26). 

This,  if  we  may  believe  the  record  in  Exodus,  is  the  law  of 

sacrifice  delivered  at  the  foot  of  Mt.  Sinai  (cf.  18-21).      Does 

it  authorize  a  multitude  of  altars  at  as  many  different  places  ? 

or  one  altar  at  a  time  ?     The  word  "altar"  is  in  the  singular 

number,  and  the  people  are  addressed  as  one  individual:  "An 

altar  of  earth  shalt  thou  make  unto  me."      Evidently  the  one 

people  were  to  make  the  one  altar ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  the 

multiplicity  of  simultaneous  altars  in  use  at  the  alleged  date  of 


32  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Deuteronomy  would  have  been  jut^titied  by  this  law.  But  the 
altar  was  to  be  made  of  earth  or  of  stone,  and  consequently  jt 
could  not  be  moved.  If,  then,  after  th,e  first  one  was  built  under 
this  law,  ano'ther  should  be  needed  at  another  place,  it  would 
have  to  be  erected  as  was  the  first.  This  brings  us  to  the  ques- 
tion of  place,  and  to  the  second  provision  of  the  law :  "In  every 
place  where  I  record  my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  bless 
thee."  Though  not  expressed,  it  is  here  implied  that  in  these 
places  the  aforesaid  altar  would  be  erected.  But  Israel  as  a 
people  could  be  in  only  one  place  at  a  time,  and  consequently 
the  places  contemplated  are  consecutive  and  not  simultaneous 
places  of  worship.  With  this  the  subsequent  history  of  Israel 
perfectly  agrees.  The  altar  of  wooden  boards  covered  vdth  brass 
which  Moses  constructed  before  leaving  Mt.  Sinai  (Ex.  xxvii. 
1-8),  instead  of  being  in  conflict  with  this  law,  as  has  been  al- 
leged, was  strictly  in  confonuity  with  it.  An  altar  of  earth,  if 
used  more  than  once,  would  be  constantly  crumbling,  and  one  of 
unhewn  stones  would  be  constantly  falling.  Neither  would  be 
at  all  suitable  for  continued  use.  Consequently,  as  Mr.  Fergu- 
son has  conclusively  shown  in  Smitli's  Bible  Dictionary,  the 
structure  made  by  Moses,  which  was  nothing  but  a  hollow  box 
without  top  or  bottom,  was  only  a  case  within  which  the  real 
altar  was  made,  and  which  held  it,  whether  made  of  earth  or  of 
rough  stones,  in  proper  shape,  while  it  gave  the  structui*e  a 
smooth  exterior.  By  itself  it  was  not  an  altar  at  all ;  for  it  pro- 
vided no  place  on  which  the  fire  could  be  built  and  the  victims 
burned.  If  the  fire  had  been  built  inside  of  it,  as  has  been  sup- 
posed, it  would  have  charred  the  wood  through  the  thin  plates 
of  brass,  and  ruined  tlie  structure.  But  when  the  case  was 
placed  on  a  level  piece  of  ground,  and  filled  witli  earth,  or  with 
stones,  the  law  was  complied  with,  and  the  altar  was  held  in 
proper  shape  for  any  length  of  time.  When  the  jjlace  of  en- 
campment was  changed,  the  priests,  by  means  of  the  strong 
wooden  bars  passed  through  rings  on  the  outside  of  the  case, 
lifted  the  latter  away  from  the  enclosed  earth  or  stones,  and  left 
the  altar  to  crumble.     This  one  altar  at  a  time,  frequently 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  U 

renewed,  yet  always  the  same  in  exterior  appearance  and  form, 
was  the  altar  of  Israel,  according  to  tlie  history,  throughoT.it  the 
desert  wanderings,  throughout  the  period  of  Joshua  and  the 
judges,  and  on  to  the  erection  of  Solomon's  temple.  It  is  only 
by  impeaching  the  sacred  records  that  this  can  be  denied.  And 
if  this  is  the  truth  res}>ecting  the  first  legislation  about  the  altar 
and  the  place  of  worship,  the  only  difference  between  this  law 
and  that  in  Deuteronomy  is  that  in  the  latter  the  exclusiveness 
of  the  law  is  made  more  emphatic. 

Another  evidence  of  the  perfect  unity  of  these  two  laws  is 
found  in  the  words  used  in  common  respecting  the  place  of  wor- 
ship. In  Exodus  the  words  are,  "In  every  place  where  I  record 
my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee,  and  I  will  bless  thee."  In  Deu- 
teronomy, ''But  unto  the  place  which  Jehovah  your  God  shall 
choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  to  put  his  najne  there,  even  unto 
his  habitation  shall  ye  seek,  and  thither  thou  shailt  come,"  The 
latter  contains  no  verbal  quotation  from  the  former,  but  it  is 
evidently  intended  to  explain  ife  Where  the  former  has,  "In 
every  place  where  I  record  my  name,"  the  latter  has,  "Unto  tlie 
place  which  Jehovah  your  God  sliall  choose" — choosing  a  place 
for  his  worship,  explains  the  expression,  "record  my  namei" 
The  only  difference  is  that  in  the  older  law  it  is  implied  that 
he  might  record  his  name  in  more  than  one  place,  whereas  in 
the  lattea*  he  is  to  choose  one  place.  And  this  agi*ees  with  the 
history ;  for  wdien  they  came  into  Canaan  God  first  recorded  his 
name  at  Shiloh,  where  the  tabernacle  with  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant in  it  was  located  by  Joshua,  and  remained  till  after  the 
capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Philistines  (Josh,  xviii.  1 ;  I.  Sam. 
iv.  11 — V.  1).  Afterwards  Jerusalem  was  chosen,  and  this  is 
the  one  sanctuary  to  which,  according  to  all  classes  of  critics, 
the  words  of  Deuteronomy  have  reference. 

Prof.   William   Henry   Green  has  spoken   so  well   on  the 

alleged  discrepancy  between  these  two  laws,  that  I  here  quote 

him  in  full: 

There  is  no  such  difference  as  is  pretended  between  the  book  of 
the  covenant  and  the  other  Mosaic  codes  in  respect  to  the  place  of 
legitimate  sacrifice.     It  is  not  true  that  the  former  sanctioned  a  mul- 


84  The  AUfHoHsHiP  oP 

tiplicity  of  altars,  and  that  this  was  the  recognized  practice  of  pious 
worshipers  of  Jehovah  until  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  that  he  insti- 
tuted a  new  departure  from  all  previous  law  and  custom  by  restrict- 
ing sacrifice  to  one  central  altar  in  compliance  with  a  book  of  the 
law  then  for  the  first  time  promulgated.  The  unity  of  the  altar  was 
the  law  of  Israel's  life  from  the  beginning.  Even  in  the  days  o.f 
the  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  no  such  thing  was  known 
as  separate  rival  sanctuaries  for  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  co-existing 
in  various  parts  of  the  land.  They  built  altars  and  offered  sacrifice 
in  whatever  part  of  the  land  they  might  be,  and  particularly  in 
places  where  Jehovah  appeared  to  them.  But  the  patriarchal  fam- 
ily was  a  unit,  and  while  they  worshiped  in  different  places,  succes- 
sively in  the  course  of  their  migrations,  they  nevertheless  worshiped 
in  but  one  place  at  a  time.  They  did  not  offer  sacrifice  contempora- 
neously on  different  altars.  So  with  Israel  in  their  marches  through 
the  wilderness.  They  set  up  their  altar  wherever  they  encamped, 
at  various  places  successively,  but  not  in  more  than  one  place  at 
the  same  time.  This  is  the  state  of  things  which  is  recognized  and 
made  legitimate  in  the  book  of  the  covenant.  In  Ex.  xx.  24  the  Isra- 
elites are  authorized  to  erect  an  altar,  not  wherever  they  may  please, 
but  "in  all  places  where  God  records  his  name."  The  critics  inter- 
pret this  as  a  direct  sanction  given  to  various  sanctuaries  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  Palestine.  There  is  no  foundation  whatever  for  such 
an  interpretation.  There  is  not  a  word  here  nor  anywhere  in  Scrip- 
ture from  which  the  legitimacy  of  the  multitudinous  sanctuaries  of 
a  later  time  can  be  inferred.  An  altar  is  lawful,  and  sacrifice  upon 
it  acceptable,  and  God  will  there  meet  with  his  people  and  bless 
them,  only  where  he  records  his  name;  not  where  men  may  utter 
his  name,  whether  by  invocation  or  proclamation,  but  where  God 
reveals  or  manifests  himself  (H.  C.  of  P.,  147,  148). 

§3.  Evidence  from  Diseegaed  or  a  Central  Sanctuaey. 
It  is  argued  that  if  the  restrictive  law  in  Deiiteronomy  liad 
been  known  from  the  time  of  Moses  onward,  or  if  the  law  in 
Exodus  had  been  understood  as  restricting  sacrifice  to  one  altar 
at  a  time,  we  should  be  able  to  find  traces  of  this  restriction  be- 
tween the  time  of  Moses  and  the  time  of  Josiah.  But  it  is 
alleged  that,  on  the  contrary,  even  the  best  of  men  in  that 
interval  built  altars  and  offered  sacrifices  without  regard  to  such 
a  law,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  it;  and  that  they  did  this 
without  apology  or  rebuke.  Professor  Driver,  in  the  condensed 
style  which  is  habitual  with  him,  states  the  argument  in  the 
following  words: 

In  these  books  (Joshua — I.  Kings)  sacrifices  are  frequently 
described  as  offered  iu  different  parts  of  the  land,  without  any  indi- 
cation (and  this  is  the  impoi-tant  fact)  on  the  part  of  either  the 
actor  or  the  narrator  that  such  a  law  as  that  of  Deuteronomy  is  being 


THE  BOOK  OF  Dl'JUTERONOMY.  3§ 

infringed.  After  the  exclusion  of  all  uncertain  or  exceptional  cases, 
such  as  Judg.  ii.  5;  vi.  20-24,  where  the  theophany  may  be  held  to 
justify  the  erection  of  an  altar,  there  remain,  as  instances  of  either 
altars  or  local  sanctuaries,  Josh.  xxiv.  26;  I.  Sam.  vii.  9,  17;  ix.  12-14; 
X.  3,  5,  8;  xiii.  9;  xi.  15;  xiv.  35;  xx.  6;   II.  Sam.  xv.  12,  32. 

The  author  properly  recognizes  in  these  instances  t\vK>  dis- 
tinct groaij)s,  distinguished  by  the  fact  that  the  former  were 
accompanied  by  theophanies,  or  visible  appearances  of  divine 
messengers,  under  whose  command  oa*  with  whose  approval  the 
altars  were  erected.  The  instances  referred,  to  under  this  head 
are  those  of  the  people  assembled  at  Bochim,  and  of  Gideon  at 
Ophrah.  He  might  have  added  tJiat  of  Manoah  at  Zorah 
(Judg.  xiii.  15-20).  Of  these  he  speaks  cautiously.  He  styles 
them  ''uncertain  or  exceptional  cases."  What  h©  means  by  "un- 
certain" I  do  not  know,  unless  he  is  uncertain  whether  they 
actually  occurred ;  but  they  were  undoubtedly  exceptional.  His 
admission  that  if  they  did  occur  as  described  "the  theophany 
may  bo  held  to  have  justified  the  erection  of  an  altar,"  renders 
it  unnecessary  for  me  to  discuss  them  so  far  as  Professor  Driver 
is  concerned,  but  not  so  far  as  respects  the  great  majority  of  his 
fellow  critics;  for  they  deny  the  reality  of  theophanies,  and  hold 
that  these  altars  were  erected,  if  at  all,  on  the  responsibility  of 
the  men  themselves.  For  this  reason  we  shall  consider  the  bear- 
ing which  these  cases  have  on  the  main  question  as  if  no^  conces- 
sion, had  been  made. 

As  respects  the  sacrifice  at  Bochim,  the  facts  revealed  in  the 
context  (Judg.  ii.  1-5)  are  these:  The  people  of  Israel  were 
assembled  at  a  place  which,  at  the  time  of  their  assembling,  bore 
no  distinctive  name.  For  wli.at  purpose  they  had  assembled  we 
are  not  infonned.  It  may  have  been  for  some  political  purpose, 
or  it  may  have  been  for  public  worship.  The  angel  of  Jehovah 
came  from  Gilgal  to  this  place,  and  rebuked  the  people  for  hav- 
ing made  peace  with  the  Canaanites  contrary  to  the  command 
of  Jehovah.  The  people  w^ept  under  the  rebuke,  and  offered 
sacrifices  unto  Jehovah.  Because  of  the  weeping,  they  gave  the 
name  Bochim  (weepers)  to  the  place.  There  is  not  a  word 
said  about  erecting  an  altar,  although  no  sacrifice  could  be 
offered  without  one.     The  natural  inference  is  tliat  the  taber- 


36  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

iiacle,  witli  its  altar,  was  cloee  by  the  place  of  assembly.  A  case 
of  erecting  an  altar  distinct  from  the  one  at  Shiloli  is  therefore 
not  made  out.  Critics  who  claim  to  be  scientific  should  remeim- 
bcT  that  to  draw  conclusions  from  facts  wliicJi  are  assumed,  and 
can  not  be  proved,  is  anything  else  than  scientific. 

As  respects  Gideoai's  altar  and  sacrifice,  the  case  is  made  out, 
and  made  out  very  plainly.  When  the  angel  of  Jehovah  kad 
appeared  to  him,  given  him  his  commission  to  deliver  Israel 
from  the  Midianites,  had  set  fire  to  the  stewed  kid  and  bread 
by  touching  them  with  the  point  of  his  staff,  and  had  disap- 
l>eared,  Gideon  built  an  altar  on  the  spot,  and  called  it  Jeliovah- 
shalom ;  but  he  built  it  as  a  monument,  and  not  for  the  purpose 
of  offering  sacrifice  on  it.  He  offered  none.  Within  the  same 
night,  however,  Jehovah  coanmanded  him,  perhaps  by  the  mouth 
of  the  same  angel,  to  take  his  fatheir's  seven-year-old  bullock  to 
the  top  of  the  hill  w^here  was  an  altar  of  Baal,  to  tear  down  the 
latter  and  build  in  its  place  an  altar  to  Jehovah,  and  offer  on 
it  the  bullock.  All  this  Gideon  did,  and  he  did  it,  as  the  moim- 
ing  light  revealed,  at  the  imminent  peril  of  his  life.  Does  this 
prove  that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  with  its  law  against  the 
erection  of  other  altars  than  the  one  at  the  central  sanctuary, 
was  unknowai  to  Gideon  ?  Suppose  that  he  had  kno'W^l  a  book 
which  had  this  law  written,  on  e^^ery  page,  would  he  have  disr 
obeyed  Jehovah  himself  wdien  he  gave  him  this  special  com- 
mand ?  I  presume  that  when  Abraham  was  commanded  to  sac- 
rifice his  son  Isaac,  he  knew  very  ^vel].  that  it  was  contrary  to 
God's  will  that  a  man  should  kill  his  orwn  son;  yet  I  presume 
that  later  Bible  writers  and  speakers,  including  Jesus  and  the 
apostles,  have  been  right  in  admiring  Abraham's  obedieoce  to 
the  divine  command.  If  Gideon  had  sense  enough  to  know 
which  was  his  father's  seven-year-old  bullock,  he  had  sense 
enough  to  know  that  he  who  makes  a  law  has  the  right  to  make 
exceptions  to  it.  I  wonder  if  our  scientific  critics  do  not 
know  this. 

In  the  case  of  Manoah,  no  altar  was  erected,  though  the  nat- 
ural rock  on  which  his  offering  w^as  laid  is  called  an  altar.  He 
proposed  to  prepare  a  kid  for  the  angel  of  Jehovah  to  eat;  but 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  37 

the  latter  said:  "Though  thoii  detain  me,  I  will  not  eat  of  thy 
bread ;  and  if  thou  wilt  make  ready  a  burntz-offering,  thooi  must 
offer  it  unto  Jehovah."  This  gave  to  Manoah  express  permis- 
sion to  offer  a  burnt  offering;  and  consequently,  when  the  kid 
and  meal  were  brought,  he  offered  both  ujwn  the  rock  to-  Jehovah. 
He  set  fire  to  his  offering,  and  when  the  flame  went  up,  the 
angel  went  up  in  it.  By  this  Manoah  knew  that  his  visitor  was 
the  angel  of  Jeliovah,  and  his  offering  had  the  angel's  approval. 

On  presenting  the  facts  with  reference  to  these  three  offer- 
ings in  a  lecture,  I  was  once  asked  how  God  could  thus  make 
exceptions  to  his  law,  consistently  with  Paul's  warning  to  the 
Galatians,  "Though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  should  preach 
to  you  any  gospel  other  than  that  we  preached,  let  him  be 
anathema."  I  answered  that  making  exceptions  in  laws  which 
were  made  to  be  abolished  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  per- 
verting the  everlasting  gospel.      This  answer  is  sufficiviut.^ 

Let  us  now  examine  the  second  group  of  passages  cited  by 
Professor  Driver  in  proof  of  his  allegation.  The  first  is  Josh, 
xxiv.  1,  26.  Here  in  verse  1  we  learn  that.  Joshua  gathered  the 
tribes  together  at  Shechem,  and  called  for  the  chief  men,  and, 
it  is  said,  "they  presented  themselves  before  God."  This  last 
clause,  taken  in  connection  with  the  statement  in  verse  26  that 
Joshua  took  a  great  stone  and  set  it  up  there,  im^der  the  oak  that 
was  "by  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah,"  is  claimed  as  proof  that 
there  was  a  sanctuary  at  Shechem,  at  which  the  chief  men  pre- 
sented themselves  before  God.  It  certainly  proves  this.  But 
the  thing  to  be  proved  is  that  an  altar  was  erected  there  and 
sacrifices  offered  on  it.  Of  this  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  text 
or  the  context.  A  sanctuary  is  any  holy  place ;  and,  as  Abraham 
had  once  sojourned  here ;  as  Jacob  had  once  bought  a  piece  of 
land  here,  on  which  he  resided  until  the  slaughter  of  the  Shech- 
cmites  by  his  sons ;  as  Joseph's  mummy  was  buried  here,  and  as 
here  Joshua  himself  had  erected  a  monumental  altar,  on  which 
were  inscribed  the  Ten  Commandments — it  is  not  surprising 

-  For  other  grounds  of  justification  in  this  case,  see  J.  J.  Lias, 
Lex  M.,  263f.,  266;  Principal  Douglas,  Lex  M.,  266;  Bissell,  0.  and  S. 
of  Pent.,  356ff. 


38  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

that  some  particular  spot  here,  overshado'wed  by  a  magnificent 
oak,  was  known  as  a  sanctuary.  If  Peter,  even  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  styled  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  ^'the  holy 
mount.,"  why  may  not  a  place  at  which  so  many  solemn  events 
had  transpired  have  been  called  a  sanctuary  or  holy  placei, 
though  no  sacrifice  was  offered  there  ?  It  is  clear,  then,  that 
Driver's  first  citation  has  no  bearing  whatever  uf)on  his  proposi- 
tion.    Strange  that  so  good  a  marksman  made  so  wild  a  shot ! 

But  three  of  the  others  are  equally  wild.  One  (I.  Sam.  xiii. 
9-14)  is  the  sacrifice  offered  by  King  Saul  at  Gilgal,  which  was 
condemned  so  severely  by  Samuel,  that,  in  the  name  of  Jehovah, 
he  said,  ''ISTow,  thy  kingdom  shall  not  continue."  Another  (I. 
Sam.  xiv.  35)  is  the  erection  by  Saul  of  an  altar  on  the  spot 
where  the  pursuit  of  the  Philistines  ended  at  the  close  of  the 
day  of  his  rash  vow.  But  here  he  offered  no  sacrifice,  and  the 
altar  was  evidently  intended  as  a  monument.  It  is  called  in 
the  text  the  first  altar  that  Saul  built;  and  this  shows  that 
the  altar  on  which  he  had  made  offerings  at  Gilgal  was  not 
built  by  him,  but  was  one  that  pre-existed.  The  third  wild  shot 
is  the  reference  (II.  Sam.  xv.  12,  32)  to  the  sacrifices  offered 
by  Absalom  at  Hebron,  when  inaugurating  the  rebellion  against 
his  father;  and  to  the  statement  in  connection  with  David's 
flight  from  Jerusalem,  that  he  came  to  the  top  of  the  ascent  of 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  "where  God  was  w^orshiped."  In  the  last 
instance  nothing  is  said  about  an  altar  or  a  sacrifice;  everybody 
knows,  who  knows  David,  that  he  could  worship  God  without 
either;  and  the  first  instance  was  a  piece  of  hyjwcrisy  on  the 
part  of  Absalom,  wdiich  he  would  have  perpetrated,  in  defiance 
of  such  a  law  as  that  in  Deuteronomy,  with  as  little  hesitation 
as  he  j)erpetrated  his  other  crimes.  His  father's  assent  to  it 
was  an  act  of  weak  indulgence  toward  a  wayward  son  who 
seemed  now  to  manifest  some  gratitude  toward  God. 

There  remain,  then,  out  of  the  nine  passages  cited  by  Driver 
in  support  of  his  proposition  only  the  five  which  speak 
plainly  of  sacrifices  being  offered  in  various  places  by 
the    prophet    Samuel.       This    reminds    me    to    say    that    it 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  3a 

is  quite  a  custom  with  tlie  destructive  critics — and  not 
less  so  with  Driver  tlian  witli  others — to  string  out  a 
long  list  of  passages  in  suj>p0'rt  of  a  j)roposition,  many  of 
which,  as  in  this  instance,  are  totally  irrelevant.  The  reader 
who  is  not  familiar  with  the  Scriptures,  and  is  either  too  indo- 
lent or  too  busy  to  hunt  up  the  passages,  takes  it  for  granted 
that  the  great  scholar  knows  what  is  in  his  proof-texts,  and 
that  the  proof  is  doubtless  there.  This,  whether  intended  so 
or  not,  is  a  kind  of  confidence  game,  by  which  careless  and 
too  confiding  readers  are  deceived. 

What  have  we  to  say  now  about  the  fact,  well  known  and 
never  disputed,  that  during  the  public  ministry  of  the  prophet 
Samuel  he  offered  sacrifices  on  altars  erected  at  various  places, 
and  never  offered  any,  so  far  as  the  history  infoiins  us,  on  the 
altar  before  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  where  the  law  in  Deu- 
teronomy requires  that  they  should  be  offered?  Does  it  prove 
that  he  knew  not  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  that,  therefore, 
it  had  not  yet  been  written  ? 

I  answer,  first,  that  if  Samuel  was  an  inspired  prophet,  the 
fact  that  he  was  guided  in  all  his  official  acts  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  even  though  some  of  these  acts  did  infringe  a  ceremonial 
law,  is  his  complete  justification.  They  were  instances,  like 
those  in  connection  with  the  tlieophanies  mentioned  above,  in 
which  God,  not  now  by  angels,  but  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  made 
exceptions  to  his  own  law.  To  the  rationalists,  who  are  the 
real  authors  of  this  argumentation,  this  answer  amounts  to  noth- 
ing, because  they  deny  the  reality  of  such  inspiration.  But  to 
men  who  believe  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  this 
answer  is  conclusive.  It  shows  that  Samuel  may  have  had  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy  in  his  hand' every  daylif  his  life,  and  may 
yet  have  done  as  he  did.  This  consideration  also'  justifies  Sam- 
uel, tho'Ugh  not  a  priest,  in  perfonning  priestly  functions,  as  it 
afterward  justified  him  in  assuming  military  command  and  civil 
jurisdiction.      (See  I.  Sam.  vii.  5-17.) 

But  it  must  be  admitted  that  such  and  so  many  exceptions 
to  a  divine  law  would  be  extremely  improbable  imder  ordinary 


40  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

circmnstanoes.  It  is  proper,  tJien,  in  order  to  a  complete  under- 
standing of  the  prophet's  course,  to  inquire  whether  there  weire 
extraordinary  circumstances  then  existing  which  furnished  an 
occasion  for  these  exceptional  proceedings. 

Samuel's  first  sacrifice  was  offered  at  Mizpah  about  twenty 
years  after  the  capture  of  the  ark  by  the  Philistines.  (I.  Sam. 
vii.  5-9  ;  cf.  chap,  ii.)  This  was  when  he  was  about  twenty-five 
years  of  age.  If  any  sacrifices  had  been  offered  anywhere  within 
those  twenty  years,  the  record  is  silent  with  respect  to  them. 
At  the  beginning  of  this  period,  and  for  a  considerable  time 
previous  to  it,  a  state  of  things  existed  in  Israel  never  known 
before,  and  never  experienced  afterward.  The  tabernacle,  with 
the  altar  built  by  Moses  in  front  of  it,  then  stood  at  Shiloh.  (I. 
Sam.  i.  3.)  Hophni  and  Phinehas  were  officiating  as  priests, 
their  father,  Eli,  being  high  priest.  The  fo'rmer  appear  to  have 
been  the  only  priests  then  officiating.  Such  Avas  and  had  been 
their  sacrilegious  conduct  that  ^'men  abhorred  the  offering  of 
Jehovah"  (ii.  IT).  If  they  abhorred  it,  they  did  not,  of  course, 
participate  in  it.  This  statement  shows  that  at  this  time  the 
men  of  Israel  in  general,  but  with  exceptions  to  be  mentioned 
presently,  had  ceased  to  bring  offerings  to  the  altar,  and  this 
best  explains  the  fact  that  only  two  priests  were  officiating. 

The  crimes  which  had  disgusted  the  people  in  general,  and 
driven  them  away  from  the  public  worship  of  God,  are  speci- 
fied. When  a  worshiper  would  slay  his  peace-offering,  and  give 
the  priests  their  legal  portion  of  it,  the  latter  would  demand 
still  more  of  the  flesh  while  it  was  raw,  and  then,  while  the 
portion  belonging  to  the  offerer  was  boiling,  they  would  send  a 
serv^ant  ^dtli  a  three-pronged  flesh-hook  in  hand,  and  whateveir 
flesh  would  be  drawn  up  by  this  when  thrust  into  the  vesseil, 
would  be  taken  to  the  priests  (ii.  12-17).^     How  many  men  of 

'"It  is  difficult  to  understand,  if  the  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  law 
were  not  yet  in  existence,  (1)  what  was  the  precise  sin  of  Hophni  and 
Phinehas — supposing  them  to  have  existed  and  to  have  committed  any 
sin — which  called  for  so  severe  a  punishment;  and  (2)  if  they  were 
fabulous  characters,  what  could  have  induced  a  historian  who  desired 
to  recommend  the  regulations  which  had  lately  been  introduced,  to 
represent  the  priests  themselves  as  having  so  grossly  violated  those 
regulations"  (J.  J.  Lias,  Lex  M.,  262,  note). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  41 

spirit,  after  being  treated  in  this  manner  once,  would  ever 
return  for  another  offering?  The  reader  can  best  give  an 
answer  by  saying  how  often  he  would  return  to  a  church  in 
the  present  day  if  he  was  treated  in  any  similar  manner  by  the 
officials  of  the  church.  And  who  would  return  tO'  church  if  even 
one  of  his  neighbors  or  particular  friends  was  dealt  with  in 
such  a  manner  ? 

But  this,  though  the  most  insulting  to  the  offerers,  was  not 
the  grossest  crime  which  these  abominable  priests  committed. 
We  are  told  in  the  text  that  "they  lay  with  the  woanen  that  did 
service  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting"  (ii.  22).  Right 
there,  in  the  sacred  precincts  where  Jehovah  should  be  adored, 
they  committed  this  abomination,  not  even  seeking,  as  all  but 
brute  beasts  usually  do,  a  secret  place  for  such  indulgence'. 
What  church  in  the  whole  of  Christendom  would  be  longer  fre- 
quented should  it  be  known  that  the  priests  or  preachers,  o^r 
church  officers  of  any  grade,  who  were  the  guardians  of  its 
sanctity,  were  making  of  it  a  house  of  shame?  There  is  evi- 
dence that  even  the  few  who  did  attend  the  services  at  Shiloh 
under  these  circumstances  were  mostly  a  class  not  much  l>etter 
than  the  priests ;  for  when  Eli  saw  the  pious  Hannah  praying 
earnestly  with  moving  lips,  but  no  audible  sound,  the  sight  of  a 
woman  at  prayer  was  so  unusual  that  he  thought  she  was  intox- 
icated. The  only  wonder  is  that  the  godly  Elkanah  still  came 
to  Shiloh  once  a  year  with  his  family.  As  to  the  three  annual 
festivals  which  all  the  people  were  required  by  law  to  attend, 
it  seems  that  they  had  fallen  into  total  neglect. 

The  infamous  conduct  of  these  beastly  men  reached  its  cli- 
max, when,  with  unholy  hands,  they  took  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
into  the  battlefield,  as  if  to  force  God  to  give  Israel  a  victory 
in  order  to  protect  the  symbol  oi  his  own  earthly  presence. 
Their  own  death  in  the  battle,  the  death  of  their  father  and 
of  the  wife  of  one  of  them,  the  defeat  of  Israel,  and  the  cap- 
ture of  the  ark  to  be  made  a  trophy  in  the  temple  of  a  heathen 
god,  were  the  terrific  consequences.  The  removal  of  the  ark 
Avas  Jehovah's  abandonment  of  the  tabernacle  which  had  been 


42  THE  AUTH0R8HIP  OP 

SO  grossly  profaned,  and  of  the  people  who  had  ceased  to  worsbip 
him.  The  dying  wife  of  Phinehas,  as  if  with  prophetic  voice, 
exclaimed,  ''The  glory  has  departed  from  Israel."  God  pro- 
tected the  ark  with  ceaseless  care,  but  he  never  returned  to  the 
deserted  tent  of  meeting. 

Another  consequence  followed  swiftly  upon  the  preceding. 
The  people  having  been  driven  from  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
by  the  sacrilege  of  the  priests,  and  having  now  been  abandoned 
in  turn  by  Jehovah,  rushed  away,  as  their  custom  was,  to  the 
gods  of  the  heathen  (vii.  4).  When  the  ark,  guided  by  the 
almost  visible  hand  of  God,  returned  to  Beth-shemesh,  after  an 
absence  of  seven  months,  the  people  of  that  town,  with  a  burst 
of  enthusiasm,  offered  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  before  it  on 
the  same  day  (vi.  15,  16)  ;  but  if  any  priest,  during  the  judge- 
ship of  Samuel,  made  an  offering  before  the  tabernacle,  the  fact 
is  not  recorded.  That  sacred  structure  had  now  become  an 
empty  shell ;  for  all  that  had  given  it  sanctity  was  gone. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  in  Israel  when  Samuel  came  to 
man's  estate.  How  he  had  passed  those  twenty  years  of  dark- 
ness we  are  not  infonned.  But  from  the  time  thati  he  predicted 
the  coming  fate  of  Eli's  hous©,  "all  Israel,  from  Dan  to  Beer- 
sheba,  knew  that  Samuel  was  established  to  be  a  prophet"  (I. 
Sam.  iii.  20).  If  he  was  five  years  of  age  at  that  time,  he  was 
twenty-five  when  he  found  that  all  the  house  of  Israel,  wearied 
with  idolatry,  began  to  "lament  after  Jehovah"  (vii.  2).  Per- 
haps tliis  change  had  been  brought  about  by  his  own  influence. 
He  issued  a  proclamation  to  all  Israel,  saying,  "If  ye  do  return 
unto  Jeliovah  with  all  your  heart,  then  put  away  the  strange 
gods  and  the  Ashtaroth  from  you,  and  prepare  your  hearts  unto 
Jehovah,  and  serve  him  only:  and  he  will  deliver  you  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  Philistines."  They  did  this,  and  he  called 
them  together  at  Mizpah,  where  he  offered  for  them  his  first 
burnt  offering  (vii.  3-9).  He  then  assumed  the  office  of  judge, 
and  from  that  day  till  Saul  was  fully  establisihed  on  the  throne 
he  continued  to  exercise  it. 

If  Samuel'had  been  so  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  that 
was  in  him,  he  could  have  brought  the  ark  from  Kiriath-jearim, 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  43 

replaced  it  in  the  tabernacle,  hunted  up  some  of  the  apostate 
priests,  and  set  the  old  form  of  worship  on  foot  once  more.  The 
fact  that  he  did  not  do  this,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  set 
up  an  altar  at  Kamah,  where  he  now  resided,  and  occasionally 
built  others  as  circumstances  required,  shows  clearly  that  such 
was  the  will  of  God  at  the  time.  Jt  might  have  been  his  will  if 
Deuteronomy  had  not  yet  been  written,  and  if  the  law  in  Deu- 
teronomy restricting  sacrifice  to  a  single  altar  had  been  written, 
it  might  still  have  been  his  will  as  an  exception  to  that  law. 
In  the  latter  case,  indeed,  it  was  the  end  of  that  law  so  far  as 
the  altai'  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  was  concerned;  for  reg- 
ular service  at  that  was  not  aftenvard  renewed  till  near  the 
close  of  David's  reign,  and  then  for  only  a  fe^v  months.  Such 
a  termination  may  have  been  thought  wise,  partly  on  account 
of  the  corniptions  of  the  past,  and  partly  on  accoimt  of  God's 
intended  transfer  of  sacrificial  rites  to  the  temple  yet  to  be  built. 

Before  advancing  to  the  next  division  of  the  subject,  it  is 
well  to  notice  another  remark  made  by  Driver  with  reference 
to  the  altars  erected  by  Samuel.  He  says:  "The  narrator  be- 
trays no  consciousness  of  anything  irregular  or  abnormal  hav- 
ing occurred." 

In  this  answer  the  learned  author  ignores  all  the  recorded 
facts  above  recited.  Was  not  the  narrator  conscious  of  some- 
thing irregular  and  abnormal  when  he  narrated  with  so  many 
details  the  wickedness  of  Eli's  sons ;  the  consequent  abhoiTence 
for  the  service  among  the  people;  the  solemn  rebukes  adminis^ 
tered  to  Eli  for  not  restraining  his  sons ;  the  capture  of  the  ark 
and  its  lodgment  far  from  the  sanctuary  in  which  it  had  been 
kept  for  four  centuries?  Tnie,  he  does  not  say,  in  so  many 
words,  that  Samuel's  disregard  of  the  altar  at  Shiloh  was  caused 
by  this  state  of  things ;  but  when  Le  related  these  irregular  and 
abnormal  circumstances  he  had  a  right  to  assume  that  his 
readers  would  see  that  they  account  for  the  irregular  and  abnor- 
mal proceedings  of  the  prophet.  In  fact,  his  readers  did 
recognize  this  connection  of  cause  and  effect,  until  modern  criti- 
cism arose  with  its  passion  for  controverting  all  accepted 
truths,  and  called  it  in  question. 


44  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Let  us  now  tiini  to  tlie  sacrifices  which  were  offered  beitweeoi 
the  time  of  Samuel  and  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple. 
First  of  all,  let  us  trace  the  history  of  the  tabernacle  and  its 
altar  during  this  period.  When  Eli  died  it  was  still  standing 
at  Shiloh,  where  it  had  stood  since  the  days  of  Joshua.  But 
Shiloh,  as  we  learn  from  Jeremiah,  was  utterly  destroyed ;  just 
when  or  by  whom  we  are  not  informed  (Jer.  vii.  12-14;  xxvi. 
6-9).  The  tabernacle,  however,  was  either  saved  from  the  wreck 
or  removed  before  it  occurred ;  for  in  the  latter  part  of  the  reign 
of  Saul  we  find  it  at  Xob,  where  David  obtained  the  shewbread 
and  the  sword  of  Goliath  from  Ahimelech,  the  priest  (I.  Sam. 
xxi.  1-9).  Nob  was  in  tlie  territory  of  Benjamin,  and  close  in 
the  vicinity  of  Gibeah,  where  Saul  resided,  Ahimelech  was  a 
son  of  Ahitub,  who  was  a  son  of  Phinehas  and  a  grandson  of 
Eli  (xsii,  19;  xiv.  3).  This  shows  that  descendants  of  Eli  to 
the  third  generation  continued  to  keep  guardianship  of  the 
tabernacle,  and  that  they  followed  it  from  Shiloh  to  Nob. 
Doubtless  Ahimelech  was  a  better  man  than  his  grandfather, 
Phinehas ;  but  the  fact  that  he  so  readily  consented  to  give  the 
holy  bread,  which  none  but  priests  could  lawfully  eat,  to  David 
and  his  servants,  shows  that  the  laws  regulating  the  tabernacle 
service  were  still  grossly  violated.  Shortly  after  this  all  the 
priests  at  N  ob  were  slaughtered  by  Doeg,  with  the  exception  of 
Abiathar,  son  of  Ahimelech,  who  fled  to  David  in  the  cave  of 
Adullam,  and  the  town  of  Nob  was  depopulated  (I.  Sam. 
xxii.  18-23). 

The  tabernacle  now  disappears  from  the  history  till  the 
latter  part  of  David's  reig-n,  when  we  find  it  in  Gibeon.  This 
place  was  some  seven  or  eight  miles  northwest  of  Jerusalem, 
and  about  the  same  distance  due  west  of  Nob.  The  ark  in  the 
meantime  had  remained  at  Kiriath-jearim.  This  place  was 
nearer  to  Gibeon  than  the  latter  was  to  Jerusalem ;  but  though 
the  two  sacred  spnbols  were  now  Avithin  five  or  six  miles  of  each 
other,  they  were  not  brought  together.  David,  after  reigning 
seven  years  at  Hebron,  took  possession  of  Jerusalem,  strength- 
ened its  fortifications  and  moved  the  ark  into  it,  placing  it  in  a 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  4S 

tent  specially  constructed  for  its  reception.  It  would  have  cost 
him  as  little  labor  to  have  moved  it  into  its  old  resting-place 
in  the  tabernacle.  He  not  only  avoids  this,  and  puts  it  into  a 
new  tent,  but  he  leaves  the  old  structure  ooitside  the  city  on  th.e 
hill  of  Gibeon.  He  does  not,  however,  totally  neglect  the  old 
structure  and  its  altar ;  for  he  appoints  Zadok  and  other  priests 
to  minister  before  it  and  to  offer  burnt  offerings  on  its  altar 
''according  to  all  that  is  written  in  tiie  law  of  Jehovah  which 
he  commanded  Israel."  At  the  same  time  he  appointed  sixty- 
eight  priests,  with  Obed-Edom  at  their  head,  to  minister 
before  the  ark  in  Jerusalem,  "as  every  day's  work  required" 
(I.  Chron.  xvi.  37-42). 

Here  now  were  two  altars  in  use  almost  in  sight  of  each 
other,  and  each  was  served  by  a  regularly  appointed  priest- 
hood. A  more  open  disregard  of  the  Denteronomic  law  restrict- 
ing sacrifice  to  a  single  altar  could  not  exist.  If  that  law  was 
in  existence  at  the  time,  then  David,  instead  of  restoring  the 
ark  to  the  tabernacle,  and  requiring  all  sacrifices  to  be  offered 
there,  as  the  law  required,  deliberately  and  intentionally  set  the 
law  aside.  But  as  David  was  constantly  attended  by  prophets, 
such  as  iN'athan  and  Gad,  besides  being  himself  inspired  in  the 
latter  part  of  his  reign,  he  must  have  been  guided  in  all  this 
by  inspiration.  Indeed,  the  very  fact  that  the  ark  had  always 
stood  in  the  tabernacle  until  it  was  captured  by  the  Philistines, 
would  have  been  a  controlling  reason  for  replacing  it  there, 
had  this  reason  not  been  overruled  by  some  superior  considera- 
tion. What  could  this  superior  consideration  have  been,  unless 
it  was  that  God,  having  formed  the  purpose  of  a  settled  place 
of  worship  in  Jerusalem,  chose  to  gradually  bring  the  taberaaole 
into  neglect,  so  that  the  transition  from  it  to  the  temple  should 
not  be  so  abrupt  as  to  shock  the  devotional  feelings  of  the  godly 
among  the  people  ?  David  had'  already  conceived  the  idea  of 
building  a  temple,  and  the  actual  construction  of  it  only  awaited 
in  God's  purpose  the  peaceful  reign  of  Solomon.  If  Deute- 
ronomy, with  its  restrictive  law,  was  already  in  existence,  its 
relaxation  was  justified  by  the  circumstances,  and  therefore  it 


46  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

can  furnish  no  ground  for  denying  the  existence  of  that  book. 
The  argument,  then,  by  which  the  non-existence  of  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  is  inferred  from  the  sacrifices  oifered  on  various 
altars  during  the  judgeship  of  Samuel  and  \he  reign  of  David, 
is  a  sophism  which  has  j)lausibility  only  in  the  absence  of  a 
careful  consideration  of  the  facts  in  the  case.  It  is  an  example 
of  historical  criticism  which  misinterprets  history. 

After  Solomon's  temple  was  consecrated,  it  must  be 
admitted,  by  all  who  give  credit  to  the  Book  of  Kings,  that 
offerings  on  any  other  altar  than  the  one  before  the  temple 
were  held  to  be  illegal.  In  the  account  of  the  reign  of  every 
good  king  down  to  that  of  Hezekiah,  it  is  mentioned  as  a  defect 
of  his  government  that  the  ''high  places"  were  not  taken  away. 
This  is  said  of  Asa,  of  Jehoshaphat,  of  Jehoash,  of  Amaziah, 
of  Azariah,  of  Jotham ;  but  when  the  author  comes  to  Hezekiah, 
the  best  of  the  kings  down  to  his  day,  he  says:  "He  did  that 
which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovali,  according  to  all  that 
his  father  David  had  done.  He  removed  the  high  places,  and 
broke  the  pillars,  and  cut  down  the  Asherah."  The  writer  has 
two  refrains  running  through  his  historical  song — one  through 
the  story  of  the  good  kings  who  reigned  in  Jerusalem,  the  oth.er 
running  through  the  story  of  the  successors  of  Jeroboam.  In 
the  former  he  sings,  "Howbeit  the  high  places  were  not  taken 
away:  the  people  still  sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  the  high 
places."  In  the  other,  "He  departed  not  from  the  sins  of  Jero- 
boam the  son  of  Nebat,  wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin."  The 
sins  of  Jeroboam,  thus  referred  to,  were  those  of  setting  wp  an 
altar  and  image  for  calf-worship,  and  of  forbidding  his  subjects 
to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  God.  They  were  sins  against 
the  single  sanctuary  to  which  Avorehip  was  restricted  by  the  law 
in  Deuteronomy.  The  sin  of  omission  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
paratively good  kings  of  Judah  was  that  of  not  removing  the 
altars  and  images  which  the  disobedient  people  were  constantly 
setting  up  "on  every  high  hill  and  under  every  green  tree." 
When,  in  addition,  the  historian  comes  to  the  reign  of  a  king 
of  whom  he  could  say,  "He  removed  the  high  places,  and  broke 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  47 

flown  the  pillars,  and  cut  down  tho  Asliorah,"  what  stronger  as- 
surance could  he  give  that  worship  at  tlft'sc  places  was  unlaw- 
ful, and  that  it  had  been  tolerated  only  by  a  dereliction  on  the 
part  of  the  kings  i  It  was  a  case  much  like  that  of  tlie  liquor 
saloons  in  our  own  country,  which  are  in  many  places  prohib- 
ited by  law,  but  are  kept  up  in  spite  of  law,  through  tlie 
unfaithfulness  of  executive  officers.  The  force  of  this  evidence 
is  so  great  that  our  destructive  critics  are  able  to  evade  it  only 
by  the  device  to  which  they  always  resort  when  all  others  fail 
them — that  of  denying  the  statements  of  the  historian.  They 
tell  us  that  tliese  axpressions  of  opposition  to  the  high  places 
Avere  intei-polated  by  a  Deuteronomic  writer  who  wrote  back 
into  the  past  the  sentiments  of  his  own  day,  his  day  being  after 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  had  been  discovered  by  Hilkiah. 
They  were  intended  to  deceive  the  people  into  the  belief  that 
Deuteronomy  was,  as  it  claims  to  be,  a  book  of  Moses.  Thus 
must  the  history  go  doA\m  to  make  room  for  the  theory.  And 
this  is  "scientific"  criticism ! 

Let  it  also  be  distinctly  noted  that  from  the  consecration  of 
Solomon's  temple  onward,  no  good  king  or  priest  or  prophet 
ever  offered  sacrifice  at  any  otber  altar  than  the  one  in  front  of 
the  temple;  and  tJiat  while  the  majority  of  the  good  kings  are 
censured  for  ijermitting  some  of  the  people  to  sacrifice  in  the 
high  places,  the  best  two  of  them,  Hezekiah  and  Josiah,  broke 
down  that  practice  to  the  best  of  their  ability.  So  far  as  Judah 
is  concerned,  then,  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  was  recognized, 
and  this  is  sufficient  proof,  in  the  absence  of  conflicting  evi- 
dence, that  Deuteronomy  was  known  and  its  authority  recog- 
nized in  that  kingdom. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  northern  kingdom.  We  learn  inci- 
dentally, from  Elijah's  answer  to  the  Lord  at  Mt,  Horeb,  that 
altars  had  been  erected  by  the  worshipers  of  Jehovah  in  Israel. 
He  says:  "The  children  of  Israel  have  forsaken  thy  covenant, 
thrown  down  thine  altars,  and  slain  thy  prophets  with  the 
sword."  This  was  spoken  during  the  prevalence  of  Baal  wor- 
ship under  the  reign  of  Ahab.  How  many  of  these  altars  had 
been  in  use  we  have  no  means  of  knowing ;  but  the  one  on  which 


48  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Elijah  called  down  fire  from  heaven  on  Mt  Carmel  was  one  of 
them ;  for  it  is  said,  "He  repaired  the  altar  of  Jehovah  that 
was  thrown  down."  It  was  made  of  twelve  stones,  according 
to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  showing  that  worshipers  of  Jeho- 
vah among  the  ten  tribes  still  recognized  the  nnity  of  Israel, 
notwithstanding  the  division  which  had  taken  place.  This 
may  have  been  the  reason  why  their  altars  were  cast  down. 

We  are  to  answer  the  question,  Does  the  fact  of  these  altars, 
whether  many  or  few,  at  which  sacrifices  were  offered  by  the 
pious  people  in  Israel,  prove  that  these  godly  people  were^  not 
acquainted  with  the  restrictive  law  in  Deuteronomy  ?  To  reach 
an  answer,  we  must  remember  that  Jeroboam,  the  first  king  of 
the  ten  tribes,  prohibited  his  subjects  from  going  to  Jerusalem 
to  worship  and  that  every  succeeding  king  "departed  not  from 
the  sins  of  Jeroboam  the  son  of  N^ebat,  who  made  Israel  to 
sin."  What,  then,  could  the  godly  in  Israel  do  when  they 
wished  to  make  atonement  for  their  sins?  They  must  either 
erect  altars  in  their  own  country,  and  make  the  prescribed  offer- 
ings there,  or  live  and  die  withoiTt  the  atonement  which  was 
necessary  to  their  peace  with  God.  Fortunately  for  them,  their 
forefathers,  previous  to  the  bringing  in  of  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
had  erected  altars  wherever  they  had  pitched  their  tents,  and 
God  had  accepted  their  sacrifices.  To  this  practice,  in  their 
extremity,  they  returned.  Moreover,  when  Jeroboam  issued 
his  famous  and  infamous  decree,  all  the  priests  and  Levitas  in 
his  kingdom  abandoned  their  homes  and  retired  into  the  king- 
dom of  Judali,  where  the  true  priesthood  officiated  at  the  one 
legal  altar ;  and  Jerobo^am  appointed  a  new  order  of  priests  for 
his  calf- worship  (II.  Chron.  xi.  13-16).  This  compelled  the 
people  in  Israel  who  clung  to  Jehovah,  to  resort  to  prophets 
to  act  as  priests,  or  to  present,  after  patriarchal  custom,  their 
own  offerings^ 

It  is  not  necessary  to  decide  whether,  in  all  this,  the  pious 
in  Israel  did  right.  Whether  they  did  right  or  wTong,  these 
considerations  amply  explain  their  non-observance  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic  law  of  a  single  altar;  and  they  show  that  the  argii- 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  49 

ment  against  the  existence  of  that  law,  drawn  from  this  non- 
observance,  is  a  very  thin  sophism,'* 

§4.  Evidence  fkom  the  Alleged  Absence  of  the  Aakonic 

Pkiesthood. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  destructive  critics  that  in  the  Book  of 
Deutei'onomy  no  official  distinction  is  made  between  priests 
and  Levites — that  all  Levites  were  qualified  for  priestly  func- 
tions. This  tliey  hold  as  proof  that  Deuteronomy  was  written 
at  a  much  later  date  than  the  Mosaic  book  of  the  covenant  (Ex. 
xx.-xxiii.),  which  makes  no  provision  for  any  priesthood  at  all, 
It  is  also  held  as  proof  that  Deuteronomy  is  of  earlier  date 
than  the  legislation  in  Leviticus  and  Xumbers,  in  which  there 
is  a  distinction  between  the  functions  of  the  priests  and  the 
other  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi — the  natural  line  of  develo|> 
ment  being  from  no  priesthood  at  ail  to  one  consisting  of  a 
whole  tribe,  and  then  to  a  select,  family  of  that  tribe,  elevated 
to  aristocratic  dignity. 

We  shall  examine  these  several  allegations  in  the  order  in 
which  they  are  named,  and  first  that  respecting  the  us©  of  the 
two  terms  in  Deuteronomy.  Driver  presents  the  common  doc- 
trine of  his  class  in  these  words: 

In  the  laws  of  P  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers  a  sharp  distinction  is 
drawn  between  the  priests  and  the  common  Levites;  in  Deuteronomy 
it  is  implied  (xviii.  1)  that  all  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  are 
qualified  to  exercise  priestly  functions  {Int.,  82;  Com.  on  Deut.,  122). 

In  his  later  work,  the  Commentary,  he  modifies  this  state- 
ment by  appending  these  remarks: 

Thus,  though  there  is  a  difference  in  Deuteronomy  between 
"priest"  and  "Levite,"  it  is  not  the  difference  recognized  in  P;  in  P 
the  priests  constitute  a  fixed  minority  of  the  whole  tribe,  viz.:  the 
descendants  of  Aaron;  in  Deuteronomy  they  are  a  iluctuating  minority , 
viz. :  those  members  of  the  tribe  officiating  for  the  time  at  the  central 
sanctuary.  Accordingly,  in  Deuteronomy  the  distinctive  title  of  the 
priests  is  not  "sons  of  Aaron,"  but  "sons  of  Levi"  or  "Levitical 
priests."  Naturally  the  eldest  of  the  families  descended  directly  from 
Aaron,  which  had  the  custody  of  the  ark.  enjoyed  the  pre-eminence, 
and  this  is  recognized  in  x.  6;  allied  families  also,  which  had  secured 


*  This  view  of  the  subject  is  admirably  presented  by  Dr.  J.  Sharpe, 
Lex  M.,  345  f. 


50  ■  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

a  position  at  the  central  sanctuary,  would  doubtless  rank  above  their 
less  fortunate  brethren;  but  no  exclusive  rigJit  is  recognized  in  Deute- 
ronomy as  belonging  to  the  descendants  of  Aaron  in  contradistinctiou 
to  other  members  of  the  tribe   (219). 

It  seems  from  this  that  Deuteronomy  does  make  a  distinc- 
tion between  priests  and  Levites.  It  is  admitted  that  the 
expression  "j)i'i6sts  and  Levites"  means  "the  Levitieal 
priests."  In  his  comment  on  xviii.  1,  Driver  makes  this  still 
more  explicit  by  defining  the  expression  as  ''the  priests  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  the  Levitieal  priests,  the  standing  designation  of 
the  priests  in  Deuteronomy"  (21e3).  And  yet  he  makes  a 
feeble  effort  to  show  that  the  expression  includes  the  whole 
tribe  of  Levi.  The  whole  verse  under  consideration  reads: 
"The  priests  the  Levites,  even  all  the  tribe  of  Levi,  shall  have 
no  portion  nor  inheritance  with  Israel :  they  shall  eat  the  offer- 
ings of  Jehovah  made  by  fire,  and  his  inheritance."  Driver 
says  of  the  clause,  "even  all  the  tribe  of  Levi,"  that  it  is  "an 
explanatory  apposition  to  'the  priests  the  Levites.'  Such 
explanatory  appositions  are  frequent  in  Deuteronomy,  and 
denote  regailarly  the  entire  gronp  of  which  one  or  more  repre- 
sentative items  have  been  specified  in  the  preceding  words" 
(213).  Let  this  be  tnie,  and  it  only  shows  that  the  entire  group 
included  in  all  the  tribe  of  Levi,  of  which  one  "representative 
item"  has  been  mentioned  in  the  previous  words,  were  to  have 
no  portion  nor  inheritance  with  Israel.  But  this,  instead  of 
showing  that  the  Levitieal  priests  included  the  whole  tribe  of 
Levi,  only  shows  that  they  constituted  "one  representative 
item"  of  that  "entire  group." 

There  is  a  fact,  strangely  overlooked  by  Driver  and  his  fel- 
low critics,  which  thoTO'Ughly  disproves  the  assumption  that  the 
expression  "the  priests  the  Levites"  means  all  the  tribe  of 
Levi ;  and  this  is  the  fact  that  the  author  of  Chronicles,  who, 
as  they  freely  admit,  was  acquainted  with  the  law  which  makes 
"a  sharp  distinction"  between  priests  and  Levites,  employs  the 
same  expression  three  times  for  the  priests  alone  (II.  Chron. 
V.  5;  xxiii.  18;  xxx.  27).  Xot  only  so,  but  the  same  expres- 
sion is  found  in  Josh.  iii.  3,  which  is  ascribed  by  these  critics 
to  Ej  who  wrote  according  to  hypothesis  before  the  date  of  Deu- 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  51 

terouomy,  and  yet  it  designates  the  priests  only ;  for  they  borci 
the  ark  across  the  Jordan,  and  this  could  not  have  been  done 
by  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi.  The  expression  in  that  place  is 
translated  in  the  Polychrome  Bible,  "the  Levitical  priests." 
Such,  then,  is  the  fate  of  a  criticism  which  is  held  by  all  classes 
of  destructive  critics  as  proof  of  a  contradictioin  between  Deu- 
teronomy and  the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 

In  the  rest  of  the  extract  from  Driver's  Commentary  given 
above,  there  are  two  points  of  argument  that  demand  attention, 
and  both  may  be  answered  together.  First,  that  though  a  dif- 
ference between  priests  and  Levites  is  recognized  in  Deute- 
ronomy, it  is  not  the  same  difference  wdiich  is  clearly  defined 
in  P;  that  is,  in  Leviticus.  Second,  that  while  the  descend- 
ants of  Aaron  had  the  custody  of  the  ark,  and  on  this  account 
enjoyed  a  pre-eminence,  no  exclusive  inght  is  recognized  as 
belonging  to  them.  This  is  all  answered  by  the  fact  that  in 
Deuteronomy  the  distinction  betA\'een  priests  and  Levites  is 
nowhere  formally  stated,  but  in  the  three  middle  books  it  is. 
If,  then,  we  grant  what  the  books  themselves  claim,  that  these 
middle  books  which  make  the  distinction  were  written  before 
Moses  delivered  tlie  addresses  in  Deuteronomy,  it  is  seen  at 
once  that  there  was  no  occasion  in  Deuteronomy  for  pointing 
out  this  distinction,  it  being  perfectly  well  kno'Ara  to  all  the 
people.  It  is  only  by  first  assuming  that  Deiuteronomy  pre- 
ceded the  other  books  that  these  critics  can  find  a  place  for  this 
argument;  it  can  not  therefore  be  used  as  proof  of  that  pre- 
cedence. When  a  fact  can  be  equally  accounted  for  by  either 
of  two  suppositions,  it  can  not  be  logically  used  as  a  proof 
of  either. 

We  shall  have  more  to  say  respecting  the  alleged  differences 
between  Deuteronomy  and  the  middle  books  on  this  subject  of 
the  Levites  Avhen  we  come  to  speak  of  other  alleged  contradic- 
tions between  them. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  well  to  notice  the  use  that  has 
been  made  of  Micah's  Levite  priest  as  a  proof  of  the  priestly 
character  of  the  Levites  in  the  time  of  the  judges.  Andrew 
Harper  states  the  case  very  briefly  in  these  words : 


52  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

As  we  see  from  the  story  of  Micah  in  Judges,  it  was  considered 
desirable  to  have  a  Levite  for  priest  everywhere,  and  consequently 
there  would  arise  at  all  the  high  places  Levitic  priesthoods,  most  prob- 
ably in  part  hereditary  (Com.,  p.  325). 

Wheal  the  reason  why  Micah  was  glad  to  obtain  a  Levite 
as  his  priest  is  considered,  tlie  inference  sought  to  be  derived 
from  the  fact  disappears.  This  reason  is  uniformly  ignored 
by  the  critics  who  argue  as  Harper  does.  It  is  this:  Micah 
had  set  up  a  silver  idol  in  his  house,  made  of  some  silver  which 
he  had  stolen  from  his  mother;  and,  because  he  could  do  no 
better,  he  made  one  of  his  sons  the  priest  to  serve  before  it. 
The  son  was  probably  a  chip  from  the  old  block.  One  day  a 
good-foT-nothing  Levite',  who  was  wandering  about  like  a  mod- 
ern tramp,  "to  sojourn  where  he  could  find  a  place,"  dropped 
in,  and  Micah,  on  learning  who  he  was,  offered  him  five  dollars 
a  year  and  one  suit  of  olothes,  if  he  would  stay  with  him  and 
be  his  priest.  The  trifling  fellow  accepted  the  offer,  and  Micah 
was  fool  enough  to  say,  "N"ow  I  know  the  Lord  will  do  me  good, 
seeing  that  I  have  a  Levite  for  my  priest."  He  was  lifted  up 
by  the  exchange,  very  much  as  a  modern  saloon-keeper  would 
be  if  he  could  get  a  deacon  for  his  bartender.  But  Avhat  proof 
does  this  afford  that  all  Levites  in  those  days  exercised  priestly 
functions  ?  It  was  not  long  before  this  tramp  Levite,  for  the 
sake  of  better  wages,  combined  with  some  rascally  Danites  to 
steal  Micah's  image  and  carry  it  off  to  a  city  which  the  Danites 
were  about  to  steal,  and  to  set  up  a  house  of  worship  there. 
Served  Micah  about  right  (Judg.  xvii.,  xviii.). 

Driver  agrees  with  Harper  in  thinking  that  many  of  the 
2:)riests  of  the  high  places  were  Levites ;  and  the  reckless  conduct 
of  Micah's  Levite  makes  this  highly  probable.  In  times  of 
demoralization  the  people  always  neglect  their  duty  toward  the 
ministers  of  religion,  and  the  latter  are  apt  to  become  demor- 
alized with  them,  and,  for  the  sake  of  money  or  notoriety,  to  be 
ready  for  anything  that  turns  up.  But  Driver  makes  a  singular 
use  of  this  fact  in  the  following  passage  in  his  Commentary: 

The  aim  of  Deuteronomy  is  to  limit  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Jeru- 
salem priests:  it  provides  that  a  country  Levite,  coming  to  officiate  at 
the  central  sanctuary,  is  to  share  in  the  dues  received  there  equally 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  53 

with  the  priests  resident  on  the  spot.  How  far  this  provision  was 
acted  on  by  the  Jerusalem  priests,  we  do  not  know;  II.  Kings  xxiii 
9  shows  that,  at  least  after  the  abolition  of  the  high  places  by  Josiah, 
the  disestablished  priests  (who  are  yet  styled  "the  brethren  of  those 
at  Jerusalem"),  though  they  were  allowed  the  maintenance  due  to 
them  as  priests  by  the  law  of  Deut.  xviii.  8,  were  not  admitted  to  the 
exercise  of  priestly  functions  at  the  temple  (220). 

This  is  true,  but  where  did  Josiah  get  the  idea  of  thus  deal- 
ing with  these  priests,  and  what  authority  could  he  claim  for 
refusing  them,  when  they  returned  to  tlieir  jiroper  places,  the 
privileges  of  their  office  ?  This  question  the  critics  do  not  pre- 
tend to  answer,  although  an  answer  is  close  at  hand  if  they 
were  willing  to  use  it,  and  it  can  scarcely  have  escaped  the 
notice  of  them  all.  This  exclusion  is  explicitly  provided  for 
in  the  Book  of  Leviticus  in  the  cases  of  members  of  the  priestly 
family  who  were  marred  by  physical  blemishes.  They  were 
to  eat  of  the  holy  meats,  but  were  not  to  officiate  at  the  altar 
(Lev.  xxi.  16-24).  Here  was  an  analogous  case  to  guide  the 
judgment  of  the  king,  and  the  fact  that  he  followed  it  to  the 
letter  indicates  the  strong  probability  that  he  had  it  before 
him,  and  that  therefore  the  critical  theory  which  makes  Deu- 
teronomy precede  the  other  law-books  is  erroneous. 

We  have  already  mentioned,  in  the  beginning  of  this  sec- 
tion, the  claim  that  the  first  legislation  made  no  provision  for 
a  priesthood.  We  now  wish  to  speak  of  it  more  particularly. 
Robertson  Smith  sets  forth  the  claim  in  the  terms  that  follow : 

The  first  legislation  had  no  law  of  priesthood,  no  provision  as  to 
priestly  dues.  The  permission  of  many  altars,  which  it  presupposes, 
is  given  in  Ex.  xx.  24-26,  in  a  form  that  assumes  the  right  of  laymen 
to  offer  sacrifice,  as  we  actually  find  them  doing  in  so  many  parts  of  the 
history.  Yet  a  closer  observation  shows  that  the  old  law  presupposes 
a  priesthood,  whose  business  lies  less  with  sacrifice  than  with  the 
divine  Torah  which  they  administer  in  the  sanctuary  as  the  succes- 
sors of  Moses   (0.   T.,  359). 

The  "first  legislation"  here  mentioned  is  that  of  Ex.  xx. 
23.  But  when  this  legislation  was  given,  a  priesthood  was 
already  in  existence ;  for  wdien  God  commanded  Moses  to  come 
up  into  the  mount  where  he  gave  that  legislation,  he  said  to 
Moses:  "Let  the  priests  also,  who  come  near  to  Jehovah, 
sanctify   themselves,   lest   Jehovah   break   forth   upon   them." 


54  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

And  again :  ^"Let  not  the  2>riests  and  the  j>e'ople  break 
through  to  come  unto  Jehovali,  lest  he  break  forth  upon  tlieni" 
(Ex.  xix.  22,  24).  These  were  undoubtedly  men  who  had  been 
recognized  as  priests  before  this  first  legislation  was  given; 
that  is,  the  priests  of  the  patriarchal  dispensation.  On  the 
same  historical  authority  we  affirm  that  during  the  forty  days' 
sojourn  in  the  mount  by  Moses,  which  followed  immediately 
upon  this  legislation,  God  selected  the  family  of  Aaron  to  be 
his  priests,  thus  establishing  a  new  order  of  priesthood ;  for  we 
read  (xxviii.  1)  that  God  said  to  Moses:  "Bring  thou  near 
unto  thee  Aaron  thy  brother,  and  his  sons  with  him,  from 
among  the  children  of  Israel,  that  he  may  minister  unto  me  in 
the  priest's  office,  even  Aaron,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  Eleazar  and 
Ithamar,  Aaron's  sons."  Then  follows,  in  the  same  chapter, 
a  description  of  the  priestly  gannents  which  they  were  to  wear, 
and  in  the  next  chapter  the  law  of  their  consecration;  and  in 
the  fortieth  chapter,  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture  having 
been  then  completed,  we  have  a  description  of  their  consecra- 
tion. ]^ow,  all  this  history  has  to  be  cast  aside  as  absolutely 
false  before  it  can  be  fairly  asserted  tliat  the  first  legislation 
provided  for  no  priestliood,  that  every  man  was  left  to  offer  his 
own  sacrifice,  or  that  all  the  descendants  of  Levi  were  quali- 
fied for  priestly  functions.  And  this  criticism,  which  destroys 
the  history  that  we  have,  and  substitutes  something  purely 
imaginary  in  its  pdace,  is  styled  historical  and  scientific!^ 

§5.  Evidence  from  Alleged  Conteadictions. 

It  is  constantly  alleged  by  the  advocates  of  the  late  date  of 
Deuteronomy  that  there  are  contradictions  between  it  and  the 
three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are  inconsistent 
with  the  supposition  that  all  came  from  the  same  writer,  and 
which  demand  both  a  later  author  than  Moses  for  Deuteron- 


"  For  the  arguments  on  this  topic  expressed  by  other  authors,  see 
Robertson  Smith,  Prophets,  38,  101;  Addis,  D.  of  H.,  xlv.,  Ixxxiv.  to 
Ixxxvii.;  A.  Harper,  Com.,  21-25,  310-313;  Bartlett,  Veracity  of  Hex., 
chap,  xix.;  F.  E.  Spencer,  Lex  M.,  550;  Bissell,  0.  and  8.  of  Pent., 
112-122. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  55 

omy,  and  a  still  later  date  for  tlio  otiier  books.     A  portion  of 

the  evidence  from  this  source  has  been  considered  already  in 

Section  3,  and  now  we  take  up  the  rest. 

1.  Contradictions   as   to   the   Financial   Condition   of   the 

Levites.      This  contradiction  is  compactly  stated  by  Driver  in 

these  words : 

Deut.  xviii.  6  is  inconsistent  with  the  institution  of  Levitical 
cities  prescribed  in  Num.  xxxv.  It  implies  that  the  Levite  has  no 
settled  residence,  but  is  a  "sojourner"  in  one  or  other  of  the  cities 
("gates")  of  Israel.  The  terms  of  the  verse  are  indeed  entirely  com- 
patible with  the  institution  of  Levitical  cities,  supposing  it  to  have 
been  imperfectly  put  in  force;  but  they  fall  strangely  from  one  who, 
ex  hypothese,  had  only  six  months  previously  assigned  to  the  Levites 
permanent  dwelling-places.  The  same  representation  recurs  in  other 
parts  of  Deuteronomy:  the  Levites  are  frequently  alluded  to  as  scat- 
tered about  the  land,  and  are  earnestly  commended  to  the  Israelites' 
charity — Chaps,  xii.  12;  xviii.  19;  xiv.  27,  29;  xvi.  11,  14;  xxvi.  Il- 
ls  (Int.,  83). 

Andrew  Harper's  presentation  of  the  case  is  quite  similar: 

The  same  conclusions  present  themselves  if  we  look  more  closely 
into  the  curious  fact  that  Deuteronomy  always  speaks  of  the  Levites 
as  poor.  .  .  .  But  this  poverty  is  not  consistent  with  their  whole  posi- 
tion as  sketched  in  the  Levitical  legislation.  There  we  have  the 
Levites  launched  as  a  regularly  organized  priestly  corporation, 
endowed  with  ample  revenues,  and  ruled  and  represented  by  a  high 
priest  of  the  family  of  Aaron,  clothed  with  powers  almost  royal,  sur- 
rounded by  a  priestly  nobility  of  his  own  family,  and  by  a  bodyguard 
of  his  tribesmen  entirely  at  his  disposal.  Such  a  body  never  has 
remained  chronically  and  notoriously  poor   {Com.  on  Deut.,  25,  26). 

In  these  last  remarks,  Mr.  Harper  must  have  had  in  mind 
the  established  clergy  of  England,  whose  revenues  are  collected, 
like  those  of  the  civil  government^  by  compulsion ;  and  yet,  even 
the  English  clergy  of  the  lower  orders  remain  "chronically  and 
notoriously  poor."  Only  the  bishops  and  higher  orders  of 
clergy  are  "chronically  and  notoriously"  rich.  But  the  finan- 
cial condition  of  the  Levites,  as  provided  for  in  the  "Levitical 
legislation,"  is  very  imperfectly  understood  by  both  of  these 
scholars.  Tnie,  according  to  the  law  respecting  Levitical  cit- 
ies, eveiy  family  of  the  tribe  was  to  be  provided  with  a  home  in 
such  a  city,  but  it  is  notorious  that  a  house  to  live  in  brings 
a  man  no  income  for  the  support  of  his  family.  True,  a  strip 
of  pasture  land  a  thousand  yards  in  width  was  to  be  left  around 
every  city ;  but  this  would  barely  support  the  goats  which  were 


5C  1BE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

needed  for  milk,  and  could  bring  no  income.  True,  also,  that 
a  tithe  of  tlio  increase  from  the  fields  and  the  flocks  and  herds 
of  the  other  tribes,  was  to  be  given  to  the  Le^'ites;  and  this 
would  have  been  an  ample  provision  for  their  support  if,  as  in 
England,  an  armed  and  ample  police  force  had  been  provided 
for  its  prompt  collection  and  delivery ;  but  there  was  no  provi- 
sion for  the  forcible  collection  of  the  tithe,  and  therefore  this 
was  left  to  the  good  will  of  the  people  at  large.  The  support 
of  the  Levites  was  analogous,  not  to  that  of  the  clergy  of  an 
established  church  in  modern  times,  but  to  that  of  the  dissent- 
ing clergy  in  Great  Britain  and  the  Protestant  ministry  in 
America.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  this  ministry  is,  with 
rare  exceptions,  "chronically  and  notoriously  poor."  The 
income  for  its  support  is  meager,  and  it  varies  with  what  the 
people  call  "good  times"  and  "hard  times."  When  "hard 
times"  set  in,  one  of  the  first  moves  in  economy  is  a  reduction 
in  the  income  of  preachers.  As  a  result,  thousands  of  them 
are  often  compelled  to  resort  to  secular  labor  for  the  means  of 
livelihood.  The  same  is  true  when  waves  of  immorality  sweep 
over  the  land,  or  seasons  of  lethargy  benumb  the  souls  of  relig- 
ious people. 

On  account  of  these  considerations,  the  legislation  for  the 
support  of  the  Levites,  instead  of  securing  tjiem  against  want, 
wag  a  deliberate  consignment  of  the  whole  tribe  to  such  a 
dependence  on  the  liberality  of  the  other  tribes  as  to  insure  to 
them  frequent  periods  of  great  destitution.  Professor  Driver, 
as  quoted  above,  shows  that  he  recognizes  this  fact,  when  he 
says  that  the  terms  in  which  the  Levite  is  spoken  of  in  Deute- 
ronomy are  "entirely  compatible  with  the  institution  of  Leviti- 
cal  cities,  supposing  it  to  have  been  imperfectly  put  in  force." 
But  what  provision  of  the  kind,  in  the  history  of  any  nation, 
ever  was  perfectly  put  in  force  when  none  but  moral  force  was 
to  be  applied  ?  If  all  these  provisions  were  made  by  Moses  in 
the  wilderness,  as  they  claim  to  have  been,  every  thoughtr 
ful  Levite  must  have  seen  in  advance,  if  he  judged 
the  future  faithfulness    of    the    other    tribes    by    what    he 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  57 

had  kuowTi  of  it  in  the  past,  that  his  tribe  was 
doonieil  to  such  iincertainty  of  support  as  would  in- 
sure frequent  periods  of  destitution.  And  Moses,  above  all 
others,  must  have  foreseen  this  contingency.  Yet  Professor 
Driver  says  that  his  remarks  aboait  the  future  poverty  of  the 
Levites,  and  especially  what  he  says  of  the  Levite  being  at  times 
a  sojoiumer  in  some  city  of  the  other  tribes,  ''falls  strangely 
from  one  who,  ex  hypothesCj  had  only  six  month.s  previously 
assigned  to  the  Levites  permanent  dwelling-places."  It  would 
have  sounded  much  inore  strange  if  a  man  of  the  experience 
and  foresight  possessed  by  Moses,  had  spoken  confidently  of  the 
future  prosperity  of  the  Levites  under  the  working  of  such  a 
system  as  he  provided. 

This  vie\v  of  the  subject  is  confirmed  by  the  facts  of  his- 
tory. For  if  we  concede  that  Moses  gave  the  Levitical  legisla- 
tion, and  that  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  give 
real  history,  we  find  the  experiences  of  the  Levites  to  have  act- 
ually been  what  sound  judgment  should  have  anticipated  in 
advance.  The  Levite  who  ofiiciated  as  a  priest  before  Micah's 
silver  image  lived  in  a  time  of  lawlessness,  when  "there  was  no 
king  in  Israel;"  and  this  fully  accounts  for  his  wandering 
and  poverty. 

When  Nehemiah.  made  his  second  visit  to  Jerusalem  he 
says :  "I  perceived  that  the  jiortion  of  the  Levites  had  not  been 
given  them,  so  that  the  Levites  and  the  singers  that  did  the 
work  were  fled  every  oue  to  his  field."  This  neglect  followed 
close  upon  a  solemn  covenant  of  the  people  made  after  hearing 
read  the  law  of  J\Ioses,  in  Avhich  the  faithful  pajment  of  the 
tithes  was  one  of  the  neglected  duties  to  which,  they  pledged 
themselves  (X(eh.  xiii.  10;  x.  37-39,  28,  29).  If  such  neglect 
of  the  Levites,  compelling  them  to  resort  to  the  fields  for  a  live- 
lihood, occurred  during  the  ministry  of  !N'ehemiah,  how  much 
more  certainly  must  it  have  occurred  during  the  idolatrous 
reigns  of  such  kings  as  Ahaz,  Manasseh  and  Anion,  to  saynotn- 
ing  of  Ahaziah  and  Athaliah. 

Finally,  it  is  only  by  denying  the  truth  of  history  for  the 
sake  of  a  theory,  that  the  testimony  of  Chrooioles  with  refer- 


58  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

ence  to  the  Levitieal  cities  in  the  days  of  Jeroboam  can  be  set 
aside.  It  is  declared  by  the  author  O'f  this  book  that  when 
Jeroboam  set  up  his  idolatrous  worship  at  Bethel,  and  forbade 
his  subjects  to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  w^orship  God,  the  Levites  in 
all  Israel  resorted  to  Rehoboam.  '"They  left  their  suburbs  and 
their  j)ossessions,  and  came  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem"  (II. 
Chron.  xi.  13,  14).  We  thus  see  that  when,  in  Deuteronomy, 
the  Levites  were  spoken  of  as  if  they  would  be  a  poor  trilje, 
needing  the  religious  benevolence  of  their  brethren,  this  is  not 
contradictory  to  the  appointment  of  certain  cities  for  thean  t.-) 
dwell  in,  but  was  an  unavoidable  consequence  of  the  very  means 
of  support  which  is  provided  in  the  Levitieal  legislation.  Its 
bearing  as  evidence  is  against  the  "critics." 

It  is  notoriously  easy,  in  the  ardor  of  debate,  to  overstate 
the  facts  in  a  case.  This  has  been  don©  by  both  of  the  writers 
quoted  above  in  reference  to  the  poverty  of  the  Levites.  We 
are  told  by  Professor  Driver  that  in  Deuteronomy  "the  Levites 
are  frequently  spoken  of  as  scattered  about  the  land,  and  are 
earnestly  commended  to  the  Israelites'  charity;"  and  by  Mr. 
Harper,  that  "Deuteronomy  always  speaks  of  the  Levite  as 
poor."  We  have  thus  far  argued  as  if  these  statements  were 
correct ;  we  now  propose  to  state  the  case  as  it  is.  The  name 
"Levite,"  in  the  singular  or  the  plural  number,  occurs  nine- 
teen times  in  Deuteronomy.  Twice  they  are  mentioned  as 
guardians  of  the  book  of  the  law  (xvii.  18)  ;  once  in  connection 
with  the  curses  to  be  pronounced  at  Mount  Ebal  (xxvii.  14)  ; 
once  as  speaking  with  Moses  certain  commands  of  God  (xxvii. 
9)  ;  once  in  their  capacity  as  teachers  (xxiv.  8) ;  once  as  consti- 
tuting a  part  of  the  court  of  final  appeals  (xvii.  9)  ;  four  times 
in  connection  with  the  conunon  rejoicings  before  Jehovah  on 
festal  occasions  (xii.  18;  xvi.  11,  14;  xxvi.  11) ;  twice  when  the 
people  are  directed  to  give  the  tithes  to  them  (xxvi.  12,  13)  ; 
three  times  with  reference  to  their  being  without  landed  inher- 
itance (xii.  12 ;  xiv.  29 ;  xviii.  1)  ;  twice  in  exhortations  to  the 
people  not  to  forsake  them  (xii.  19 ;  xiv.  27)  ;  and  twice  in  the 
directions  concerning  a  homeless  Levite  w^ho  may  come  to  the 
central  sanctuarj^  to  serve  among  his  brethren. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  59 

Strictly  speaking,  in  only  five  of  these  passages  is  the  pov- 
erty of  the  Levites  spoken  of  at  all,  and  in  only  two  are  the 
people  of  the  other  tribes  exhorted  not  to  forsake  them.  This 
falls  very  far  short  of  what  one  would  suspect  from  the  strong 
language  of  Driver  and  Harper;  and  if,  as  we  have  argued 
before,  the  whole  of  the  legislation  contained  in  Leviticus  and 
Numbers  had  been  aJready  enacted,  this  was  no  worse  than  a 
fair  amount  of  good  sensei  on  the  part  of  Moses,  without  the 
aid  of  inspiration,  would  have  enabled  him  to  anticipate. 

Much  has  been  said  in  this  connection  about  the  supposed 
case  of  a  Levite  mentioned  in  Deut.  xviii.  6-8.     The  text  says : 

And  if  a  Levite  come  from  any  of  thy  gates  out  of  all  Israel, 
where  he  sojourneth,  and  come  with  all  the  desire  of  his  soul  unto 
the  place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose;  then  he  shall  minister  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah  his  God,  as  all  his  brethren  the  Levites  do,  which 
stand  there  before  Jehovah.  They  shall  have  like  portion  to  eat, 
besides  that  which  cometh  of  the  sale  of  his  patrimony. 

It  has  been  held  that  the  condition  of  this  Levite  was  that 
of  all  the  tribe.  But  he  is  clearly  distinguished  from  the  rest 
by  the  fact  implied  in  tihe  last  clause,  that  he  had  sold  his  patri- 
mony. His  condition  is  explained  and  accounted  for  by  the 
law  in  reference  to  Levitical  cities,  and  it  can  be  explained  in 
no  other  way.  xiccording  to  the  statute  governing  the  sale  and 
redemption  of  real  estate,  if  the  house  of  a  Levite  was  sold, 
he  could  redeem  it  at  any  time;  and  if  it  was  redeemed  by 
another  Levite,  it  went  out  of  the  latter's  possession  and  into 
that  of  the  original  owner  in  the  jubile  (Lev.  xxv.  32,  33). 
The  Levite's  patrimony  was  his  dwelling-house  in  the  Levitical 
city,  which  he  had  received  by  inheritance  from  his  forefathers 
back  to  the  beginning.  This  he  might  sell;  and  if  he  should 
not  be  able  to  redeem  it,  he  was  deprived  of  it  till  the  next 
jubile.  In  the  interval,  if  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  were  not 
sufficient  to  supply  his  wants,  this  law  in  Deuteronomy  gave 
him  the  privilege  of  coming  to  the  central  sanctuary  and  par- 
taking with  the  Levites  doing  seiwice  there  of  the  food  pro- 
vided for  them.  This,  together  with  what  he  had  left  from 
the  sale  of  his  patrimony,  would  keep  him  from  suffering. 
This  provision,  then,  instead  of  being  contradictory  to  the  pre- 


60  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

vious  existence  of  Levitical  cities,  demands  these  and  tli©  law 
regulating  property  in  them  as  its  explanation. 

I  have  said  that  this  is  the  only  explanation  of  the  case. 
I  am  justified  in  this  assertion  by  the  failure  of  most  of  the 
critics  to  suggest  any  other,  and  by  the  absurdity  of  the  expla- 
nations offered  by  some.  The  most  elaborate  attempt  at 
explanation  which  has  come  under  my  eye  is  that  offered  by 
Driver  in  the  following  paragraph: 

Besides  his  selling  according  to  the  fathers.  The  words  are  very 
obscure:  they  are  usually  understood  to  mean  "apart  from  what  he 
has  realized  by  selling  the  possessions  belonging  to  him  in  virtue  of 
his  family  descent"  (paraphrased  in  R.  V.  by  "beside  that  which 
cometh  of  the  sale  of  his  patrimony") — possessions  which,  it  is  sup- 
posed, he  would  part  with  at  the  time  of  leaving  the  country  for  the 
central  sanctuary.  Dillman  (after  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Schultz)  explains, 
"Beside  what  he  has  realized  by  selling  the  dues  (tithe,  etc.)  rendered 
to  him  at  his  home  by  particular  families."  Either  explanation  is 
questionable:  all  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  words  describe  some 
private  source  of  income  possessed  by  the  Levite,  distinct  from  what 
he  receives  as  a  priest  officiating  at  the  central  sanctuary  {Com.,  217  f.). 

When  scholarly  men  turn  away  from  plain  facts  supplied 
in  the  text  itself,  which  perfectly  explain  and  account  for  a 
provision  of  the  law,  and  resort  to  conjectures  so  unfounded 
and  so  conflicting,  it  is  a  sure  sign  that  their  minds  have  been 
warped  by  a  theory  which  is  untenable,  but  which  they  think 
themselves  bound  to  uphold. 

In  regard  to  the  law  respecting  Levitical  cities,  Addis,  fol- 
lowing Wellhausen,  takes  extreme  ground,  and  his  remarks  on 
the  subject  will  lead  us  to  another  view  of  the  arguments  which 
we  have  just  considered.     He  says : 

There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  "priestly"  rules  on  the 
income  of  the  priests  and  Levites  existed  before  the  exile.  Ezekiel 
is  silent  about  the  offering  of  tithes  and  the  firstborn  of  beasts  to 
the  priests  and  Levites.  Plainly  he  had  never  before  heard  of  priestly 
and  Levitical  cities.  For  he  makes  a  provision  in  lands  for  the 
priests  and  Levites,  without  alluding  to  any  previous  arrangement. 
Ezekiel's  plan  is  clear  and  practicable;  the  Levitical  cities,  on  the 
contrary,  were  never,  and  never  could  have  been,  more  than  a  theo- 
cratic dream.  In  such  a  country  as  Palestine,  which  consists  mostly 
of  hills  pressed  together  and  separated  by  narrow  ravines,  no  mortal 
power  could  set  apart  forty-eight  cities  surrounded  by  a  pasture  land 
of  two  thousand  ells  square  (D.  of  H.,  I.  xxxviii.). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  61 

One  would  think  from  this  last  remark,  that  Mr.  Addis 
supposes  all  of  the  cities  and  villages  of  Palestine  to  be  situated 
in  the  bottoms  or  on  the  edges  of  deep  ravines.  He  certainly 
has  never  visited  Palestine,  or  read  attentively  what  has  been 
written  of  it;  foT  even  now  it  has  not  forty-eight,  but  nearer 
408  towns,  with  twice  two  thousand  cubits  around  them,  well 
suited  for  pasturage.  Is  he  ig-norant  of  the  fact  that  much 
more  than  half  the  surface  is  as  smooth  and  level  as  a  Western 
prairie?  Again,  if  the  Levitical  cities  "never  were,  and  ne\'er 
could  have  been,  more  than  a  theocratic  dream,"  how  could 
the  writers  of  Joshua  and  lumbers  have  been  believed  when 
they  wrote  about  them  ?  And  as  to  Ezeikiel,  if  his  silence 
about  them  shows  that  he  knew  nothing  of  them,  why  does 
not  his  silence  about  the  offering  of  tithes  and  the  firstborn  of 
beasts,  which  are  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy,  prove  th.at  he 
knew  nothing  about  them?  It  is  acknowledged  that  Deute- 
ronomy was  Ezekiel's  law-book;  and  if  he  is  silent  about  laws 
contained  in  it,  why  may  he  not  have  been  equally  silent  in 
regard  to  other  laws,  and  especially  about  Levitical  cities 
v/hich  had  confessedly  ceased  to  be  such  when  Ezekiel  wrote  ? 
All  these  assertions  are  boldly  uttered  by  Mr.  Addis,  but  in 
uttering  them  he  is  whistling  against  the  wind. 

The  facts  in  the  case  suggest  still  another  consideration, 
which  we  will  mention  before  we  dismiss  this  arg-ument.  If 
it  is  incredible,  o-r  inconsistent  with  Deuteronomy,  that 
Levitical  cities  existed  before  the  exile,  what  about  the  possi- 
bility of  their  existence,  as  described  in  Numbers  and  Joshua, 
after  the  exile  ?  After  the  exile,  and  previous  to  the  close  of 
the  Old  Testament  history,  the  Jews  occupied  scarcely  more 
than  the  territory  once  belonging  to  Judah,  and  this  very 
sparsely.  How,  at  that  period,  could  the  supposititious  writer 
of  the  Book  of  ISTimibers  palm  off  upon  the  people  a  law  which 
required  forty-eight  Levitical  cities,  and  how  could  the  writer 
of  Joshua  name  these  cities  and  give  their  locations  in  the 
various  tribes,  when  everybody  knew  that  both  the  law  and  the 
pretended  compliance  with  it  had  no  existence?  And  again, 
what  motive  could  have  actuated  the  two  falsehoods,  and  how 


62  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

co'uld  their  author  have  acquired  the  ingenuity  in  lying  neces- 
sary to  their  inventio'n  ?  He  was  a  greater  geoiius  than  the 
author  of  "Utopia,"  with  less  conscience  than  the  author  of 
'"Sindbad  the  Sailor."  When  men  make  such  characters  out 
of  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  and  ask  us  tO'  accept  them, 
we  decline. 

Before  we  finally  dismiss  this  subject,  we  invite  attemtion 
to  another  stateanent  in  Deuteronomy  which  can  be  accoiuntcd 
for  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  Levitical  legislation  pw- 
ceded  that  in  Deuteronomy.  It  is  found  in  the  following 
words,  addressed  by  Moses  to  the  Israelites  wath  reference  to 
the  transactions  at  Mount  Sinai :  "At  that  time  Jehovah  sepa- 
rated the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
Jehovah,  to  stand  before  Jehovah  to  minister  unto  him,  to 
bless  in  his  name,  unto  this  day.  Wherefore  Levi  hath  no 
portion  nor  inheritance  with  his  brethren :  Jehovah  is  his 
inheritance,  according  as  Jehovah  thy  God  spake  to  him" 
(x.  8,  9). 

This  last  clause,  "according  as  Jehovah  thy  God  spake  to 
him,"  can  not  refer  to  anything  said  in  Deuteronomy ;  for  this 
is  the  first  mention  of  the  subject  in  this  book.  It  must,  then, 
refer  to  something  said  previously.  If  Moses  s]x>ke  the  words, 
it  must  refer  to  what  is  written  in  Xum.  xviii.  21-24,  where 
the  statute  referred  to  is  recorded ;  and  it  proves  that  the 
transaction  in  IS^umbers  preceded  those  in  Deuteronomy.  It 
proves  particularly  that  the  Levitical  legislation,  instead  of 
being  enacted  one  thousand  years  after  Moses,  as  onr  critics 
allege,  was  enacted  by  Moses  himself.  The  only  attempt  that 
I  have  seen  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument  is  made  by 
Andrerw  Harper,  who,  in  explaining  the  words,  "as  he  hath 
spoken  to  them,"  says:  "The  only  place  in  Scripture  in  which 
such  a  promise  is  given  is  !N^um.  xviii.  20-24;  so  that  these 
passages,  if  not  referred  to  by  the  author  of  Deuteronomy, 
must  be  founded  on  a  tradition  already  old  in  his  time" 
(Com.,  314).  If  we  accept  this  as  the  alternative,  it  follows 
either  that  the  Book  of  l^umbers  w^as  written  before  Deute- 
ronomy, which  refutes  the  critical  theory,  or  at  least  that  this 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  63 

part  of  the  Levitical  legislation  was  already  in  esistence.  But 
this  is  not  the  whole  story.  The  sup|>osed  writer  of  Deoite- 
ronomy  put  these  words  in  the  mouth  of  Moses,  and  by  doing 
so  he  testifies  that  the  Levitical  legislation  preceded  the  date 
at  which  Moses  spoke.  He  fails,  tlien,  to  serve  the  puii^ose 
of  those  who  invented  him,  and  they  may  as  well  set  him  aside 
as  a  useless  device. 

2.  Contradiction  as  to  Tithes.  All  the  destructive  critics 
unite  in  claiming  that  there  is  such  a  contradiction  between 
Deuteronomy  and  JSTumbers  in  regard  to  tithes  as  to  prove 
that  the  two  books  were  written  by  different  authors  and  far 
apart  in  point  of  time. 

Professor  Driver,  after  setting  forth  the  law  of  tithes  as 

he  finds  it  in  Deuteronomy,  states  the  position  of  his  class  of 

critics  in  these  words : 

The  Deuteronomic  law  of  tithes  is,  however,  in  serious,  and 
indeed  irreconcilable,  conflict  with  the  law  of  P  on  the  same  subject 
(Com.  Deut.,  169). 

By  "the  law  of  P"  he  means  the  law  fonnally  prescribed 

in  N'um.  xviii.  21-32,    and    alluded   to   in    Lev.    xxvii.    30-33. 

Whether  this  proposition  can  be  maintained  or  not,  is  to  be 

determined  by  a  careful  consideration  of  the  provisions  in  the 

two  laws.      We  shall  first  follow  Driver  in  his  representation 

of  the  law   in  Deuteronomy.       He  be^gins  his  exposition  by 

stating  the  general  law  in  these  terms: 

Israel  is  to  show  its  devotion  to  Jehovah  by  rendering  him  a  tithe 
of  all  the  produce  of  the  soil,  to  be  eaten  by  the  offerer,  with  his 
household,  at  the  central  sanctuary,  at  a  sacred  feast,  to  which  the 
Levite  is  to  be  invited  as  a  guest:  those  resident  at  a  distance  may 
take  with  them  the  value  of  the  tithe  in  money,  and  expend  it  at  the 
sanctuary  in  such  food  as  they  desire,  to  be  consumed  similarly  at  a 
sacred  feast.  Every  third  year,  however,  the  tithe  is  not  to  be  con- 
sumed at  the  central  sanctuary,  but  to  be  stored  up  in  the  Israelite's 
native  place,  as  a  charitable  fund  for  the  relief  of  the  landless  and 
the  destitute. 

This  representation  is  near  enough  to  the  truth  to  plausibly 
represent  the  text,  and  far  enough  from  it  to  establish  the 
appearance  of  a  contradiction.  The  text  certainly  does  say: 
"Thou  shalt  surely  tithe  all  the  increase  of  thy  seed,  that  which 
cometh  forth  of  the  field  year  by  year.      And  thou  shalt  eat 


64  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

before  Jehovah  thj  God,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose  to 
cause  his  name  to  dwell  there,  the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  of  thy 
wine,  and  of  thine  oil,  and  the  firstlings  of  thy  herd  and  thy 
flock ;  that  thou  niayest  learn  to  fear  Jehovah  thy  God  always" 
(Deut.  xiv.  22,  23).  But  it  does  not  say,  as  Professor  Dri- 
ver's statement  implies,  that  they  were  to  eat  all  of  the  tithe  of 
these  various  articles.  It  is  not  guilty  of  this  absurdity.  That 
it  is  an  absurdity  is  evident  the  very  moment  we  consider  what 
the  amount  of  the  tithe  would  be.  If  the  man's  little  farm 
yielded  barely  enough  to  feed  his  family,  this  interpretation  of 
the  law  would  requirei  him  to  eat  up  at  one  feast  what  would 
keep  his  family  for  five  weeks.  Or,  to  put  the  case  in 
another  form,  if  his  farm  yielded  annually  100  bushels  of 
wheat,  100  gallons  of  wine  and  100  gallons  of  oil,  and  if  his 
firstlings  should  be  only  one  lamb,  one  kid  and  one  calf,  he 
would  be  required  at  this  "sacred  feast"  to  eat  up  ten  bushels 
of  wheat,  ten  gallons  of  wine,  ten  gallons  of  oil,  a  lamb,  a  kid 
and  a  calf.  Big  feasting  for  a  poor  man !  And  then,  if  he 
were  a  rich  man,  with  a  larger  body  of  land,  he  might  have  to 
eat  at  one  feast  100  bushels  of  wheat,  100  gallons  of  wine,  100 
gallons  of  oil,  ten  lambs,  tem  kids  and  ten  calves. 

Now,  the  only  way  to  relieve  the  law  of  this  absurdity  is 
to  suppose  that  it  provided  only  for  a  single  meal  out  of  the 
tithe  before  it  was  left  for  the  Lord,  that  is,  for  the  support 
of  the  Lord's  ministry — the  priests  and  Levites.  If  this  law 
in  Deuteronomy  was  the  beginning  of  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject, we  admit  that  there  would  be  no  room  for  this  interpre- 
tation of  it,  seeing  that  it  makes  no  provision  for  the  priests 
and  Levites  beyond  the  single  feast.  But  if,  as  the  Book  of 
Numbers  represents,  the  law  that  a  tithe  of  all  products  of  the 
soil  cultivated  by  eleven  tribes  was  to  be  given  annually  for 
the  support,  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  this  Deuteronomic  law  would 
have  been  readily  understood  when  given,  and  would  be  as 
readily  understood  now,  as  simply  providing  that,  when  the 
farmer  came  up  annually  with  his  tithe  and  his  firstlings,  he 
should  unite  with  the  beneficiaries  of  it  in  a  feast  on  part  of 
it  ere  he  left  the  remainder  to  its  appointed  purpose.      It  was 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  65 

a  very  wise  provision ;  because  it  had  tlie  teudency  to  make  the 
giver  part  from  his  gift  more  cheerfully. 

There  is  still  another  reason,  and  a  very  imperative  one, 
for  thus  understanding  the  law.  If  the  whole  tithe  w^ere  to 
be  eaten  at  one  feast,  the  Levite  would  certainly  be  well  stuffed 
at  the  time,  but  what  provision  would  this  be  for  the  rest  of 
the  year  ?  He  would  have  nothing  to  eat  except  when  he  could 
find  some  fanner  coming  up  with  his  tithe,  and  there  would  be 
intervals  of  feasting  and  longer  ones  of  fasting  throughout 
the  year — a  mode  of  living  not  conducive  to  good  health  or 
lo'Ug  life. 

Our  professor  and  his  company  are  equally  wide  of  the 
mark  in  reference  to  the  tithe  of  the  third  year.  The  law 
says:  "At  the  end  of  every  three  years  thou  shalt  bring  forth 
all  the  tithe  of  thine  increase  in  the  same  year,  and  shalt  lay  it 
up  within  thy  gates:  and  the  Levite,  because  he  hath  no  por- 
tion nor  inheritance  with  thee,  and  the  stranger,  and  the  father- 
less, and  the  widow,  which  are  within  thy  gates,  shall  come, 
and  shall  eat  and  be  satisfied ;  that  Jehovah  thy  God  may  bless 
thee  in  all  the  wo-rk  of  thy  hands  which  thoii  doest"  (28,  29). 
In  this  instance,  as  in  the  other,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
eat  all  the  tithe  at  one  feast ;  and  if  it  were  thus  eaten,  the 
Levite,  the  stranger,  the  fatherless  and  the  widow  would  alter- 
nate between  enormous  feasts  and  excruciating  fasts.  The 
meaning  evidently  is  that  out  of  the  supply  laid  up  and  kept 
on  hand  the  Levites  were  to  be  provided  for,  and  the  poor  were 
to  be  kept  from  suffering.  But  here,  again,  the  law  in  Xumbers 
is  presupposed.  It  had  already  provided  for  the  support  of 
the  Levites  out  of  the  tithe,  and  this  law  simply  adds  the  pro- 
vision that  the  poor  of  the  cities  in  which  the  tithe  waa  stored 
should  also  be  fed  from  it. 

We  are  now  to  see  in  what  way  Professor  Driver  makes 

out  his  case  of   an   irreconcilable   conflict   between   this   law 

of    Deuteronomy    and    the    law    in    Leviticus    and    Nmnbers. 

He  says: 

In  Num.  xviii.  21-28  the  tithe  is  appropriated  entirely  to  the  main- 
tenance of  the  priestly  tribe,  being  paid  in  the  first  instance  to  the 


66  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Levites,  who  in  their  turn  pay  a  tenth  of  what  they  receive  to  the 
priests;  in  Deuteronomy  it  is  spent  partly  at  sacred  feasts  (partakeu 
in  by  the  offerer  and  his  household),  partly  in  the  relief  of  the  poor 
— in  both  cases  the  Levite  (by  which  in  Deuteronomy  are  meant  the 
members  of  the  tribe  generally,  including  priests)  sharing  only  in 
company  with  others,  as  the  recipient  of  the  Israelite's  benevolence 
(p.  169). 

This  is  all  substantially  true,  but  where  is  the  irreconcila- 
ble conflict  ?  If  God  through  Moses  gave  the  first  law,  why 
should  he  be  charged  with  contradicting  himsolf  by  afterward 
providing  that  the  contributor  of  the  tithe  might  enjoy  one 
feast  on  it  in  company  with  the  Levites,  and  that  while  it  was 
kept  in  store  for  the  Levites,  any  suffering  poor  in  the  store 
city  should  be  relieved  from  it  ?  If  this  lat«r  provision  had 
been  made  after  the  first  had  gone  into  operation,  the  Levites 
would  have  been  deprived  of  a  small  part  of  that  which  had 
previously  been  their  own ;  hut  if  we  accept  the  Scriptures  for 
it,  both  laws  were  given  before  either  went  into  effect.  It  is 
like  the  provisions  of  a  man's  will  in  which  by  an  early  clause 
he  bequeaths  certain  property  to  one  of  his  children,  and  in  a 
later  clause  directs  that  this  child  shall  give  an  annual  feast  to 
his  brothers  and  sisters,  and  keep  from  suffering  any  of  them 
who  might  become  very  poor.  Who,  in  this  case,  would  proclaim 
that  the  two  clauses  of  the  will  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict, 
and  that  therefore  both  could  not  have  been  written  by  the 
same  testator?  Certainly  no  sane  man,  unless  he  was  so 
determined  to  make  a  point  against  the  will  as  to  lose  for  the 
moment  his  sanity. 

The  second  point  of  irreconcilability  is  stated  by  Driver  in 

these  words : 

Further,  in  Deuteronomy  the  tithe  is  exacted  only  on  the  vege- 
table produce;  in  Num.  xviii.,  though  it  is  not  exactly  so  stated, 
the  impression  produced  by  the  terms  employed  (note  the  similes  in 
verses  27-30)  is  that  here  also  only  a  vegetable  tithe  is  intended. 
If,  however.  Lev.  xvii.  32  f.  be  rightly  regarded  as  an  original  part 
of  the  legislation  of  P,  so  that  it  may  be  legitimately  used  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Num.  xviii.,  the  tithe  levied  on  the  annual  increase  of 
cattle  will  be  included  as  well.  But,  in  either  case,  a  large  proportion 
of  what  in  Numbers  is  devoted  exclusively  to  the  support  of  the 
priestly  tribe,  remains  in  Deuteronomy  the  property  of  the  lay 
Israelite  (169,  170). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  67 

How  could  the  lojiriiwl  author  designate  as  "a  hirge  pro- 
portion" that  which  was  only  a  single  meal  eaten  out  of  the 
tenth  of  all  of  the  fannei-'s  increase  for  a  year?  And  how 
could  he  say  that  a  large  proportion  "remains  the  property  of 
the  lay  Israelite,"  when  none  of  it  remained  with  him  except 
what  he  carried  away  in  his  stomach  ?  Such  exaggerated  state- 
ments are  not  made  by  thoughtful  men  except  when  they  are 
hard  pressed  in  making  out  a  case. 

There  is  a  custom  in  modern  times,  though  not  kno'wn  iu 
the  established  churches  of  the  Old  World,  which  illustrates 
the  sacred  feasts  of  Deuteronomy.  The  members  of  a  congre- 
gation often  gather  at  the  house  of  the  minister,  bringing  with, 
them  various  articles  of  food  to  supply  his  storeroom  for 
months  to  come;  yet  the  whole  company  renuiins  to  have  a  feast 
with  the  family  out  of  what  has  been  brought.  The  feast  adds 
a  charm  to  the  occasion,  and  increases  the  good  will  of  both, 
the  givers  and  the  receiver.  Such  was  the  evident  intention 
of  the  feast  given  on  the  occasion  of  delivering  the  tithe  to 
the  Levites. 

3.  As  to  the  Priest's  Portion  of  the  Peace-offerings.      The 

Ikw  in  Deuteronomy  is  this:  "And  this  shall  be  the  priest's 

due  from  the  people,  from  them  that  offer  a  sacrifice,  whether 

it  be  ox  or  sheep,   that  they  shall  give  unto  the  priest  the 

shoulder,  the  two  cheeks,  and  the  maV   (xviii.  3).      Driver 

says : 

This  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Lev.  vii.  32-34  (P),  which  pre- 
scribes the  breast  and  the  right  thigh  as  the  priest's  due  of  the  peace- 
offerings   (Com.,  215). 

Should  this  be  granted,  what  would  it  prove?  "Would  it 
prove  that  both  laws  were  not  given  by  Moses  ?  Or  would  it 
prove  that,  having  given  the  one  in  Leviticus  nearly  forty 
years  previously,  he  now  gives  this  as  an  addition  ?  Suppose 
Professor  Driver  to  be  a  priest,  and  there  comes  a  man  with, 
a  fat  ox  to  make  a  peace-offering.  He  offers  Driver  the 
shoulder,  the  two  cheeks,  and  the  ma.w.  Driver  answers,  "Xo, 
sir;  the  law  gives  me  the  breast  and  the  right  thigh.  I  will 
not  accept  the  shoulder  in  place  of  the  thigh,  nor  the  cheeks 


68  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

and  maw  in  place  of  the  breast."  What  would  the  offerer 
say  ?  According  to  Driver  the  critic,  he  would  say,  "There  is 
another  law  contradictory  to  this,  which  says  you  must  be  con- 
tent with  the  shoulder,  the  cheeks  and  the  maw,  and  this  being 
the  later  law,  it  abolishes  the  former."  I  think  that  Driver 
the  priest  would  see  a  jDoint  that  Driver  the  critic  overlooks. 
He  would  reply,  "JN^o,  sir;  the  two  laws  do  not  contradict  each 
other.  One  gives  me  the  breast  and  the  right  thigh ;  the  other 
gives  me  the  right  shoulder,  the  cheeks  and  the  maw;  and  I 
will  have  all  that  both  laws  give  me."  The  priest,  looking  at 
his  own  interest,  woiild  not  fail  to  be  a  better  interjDreter  than 
the  critic,  whose  chief  interest  is  to  find  contradictions.  Tie 
would  see  that  the  later  law,  instead  of  contradicting  or  repeal- 
ing the  former,  only  added  to  the  portion  to  be  given  to  the 
priest.  Xo  reason  is  given  for  the  addition;  for  it  is  no: 
the  custom  of  the  Lawgiver  to  assign  reasons  for  all  of  his 
enactments ;  but  we  can  easily  discover  one  arising  out  of 
changing  conditions.  During  the  forty  years  in  the  wilder- 
ness, the  priests  were  few  in  nimiber,  and  the  flocks  and  herds 
of  the  people  were  few  also;  but  after  crossing  the  Jordan, 
which  was  soon  to  take  place,  this  would  be  reversed — the 
priests  would  become  a  nmnerous  family,  the  people  would 
be  in  possession  of  abundance  of  cattle  taken  as  spoil  from  the 
Canaanites,  and  a  more  liberal  provision  for  the  priests  was 
but  just.  Even  at  the  time  when  Moses  was  delivering  this 
law,  the  latter  part  of  the  change  had  set  in  by  means  of  the 
immense  herds  of  animals  recently  taken  as  spoil  from  the 
Midianites  (j^um.  xxxi.  25-47).  Had  the  critics  taken  a  com- 
mon-sense view  of  the  subject,  and  taken  into  consideration 
the  attending  circumstances,  they  would  never  have  conceived 
this  argument  against  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  law. 

4.  The  Sacrifices  of  the  Passover.  This  alleged  discrep- 
ancy is  thus  presented  by  Driver: 

Deut.  xvi.  2:  "Thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passover  unto  Jehovah  thy 
God,  (even)  sheep  and  oxen."  In  P  (Ex.  xii.  3-6)  the  paschal  sacrifice 
Is  a  laml).  The  two  laws,  it  is  evident,  represent  the  usage  of  two 
different  stages  in  the  history  of  the  feast;   when  Deuteronomy  was 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  69 

written,  the  victim  might  be  either  a  bullock  or  a  sheep;  when  P  was 
written,  the  choice  was  limited  to  a  lamb   {Com.,  191). 

This  is  another  instance  of  begging  the  question.  Only 
by  assuming  tharthe  laws  in  Deuteronomy  preceded  those  in. 
Exodus  and  Leviticus,  and  then  ignoring  a  large  part  of  the 
latter,  can  this  charge  of  contradiction  be  made  plausible. 
Fully  and  fairly  stated,  the  latter  provides,  first,  that  the 
victim  consumed  on  the  first  night  of  the  passover  week  must 
be  a  lamb  of  the  first. year  (Ex.  xii.  1-8);  and,  second,  that 
after  this  they  should  "offer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto 
Jehovah  seven  days"  (Lev.  xxiii.  8).  Whether  the  victims 
of  these  "offerings  made  by  fire,"  which  means  burnt  offerings, 
were  to  be  of  the  flock  or  the  herd  is  not  specified.  Xow,  if 
we  let  this  law  stand  where  God  placed  it,  as  part  of  the  legis- 
lation given  at  Mt,  Sinai,  we  shall  find  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing the  later  provision  in  Deuteronomy,  and  not  a  shadow 
of  contradiction  will  appear.  Moses  ^vill  then  be  understood 
in  the  latter  passage  as  meaning  by  sacrifice  of  sheep  and  oxen 
the  burnt  offerings  which  followed  the  eating  of  the  paschal 
lamb,  and  by  the  word  "passover,"  not  the  paschal  supper,  but 
the  sacrificial  service  of  the  seven  days.  So  any  Jew  in  the 
audience  who  heard  Moses  would  instinctively  and  necessarily 
understand  him ;  and  so  would  any  modern  reader  who  had 
read  the  previous  law  and  remembered  it.  Even  Kuenen  so  un- 
derstands it  (ii.  30).  Thus  another  alleged  discrepancy  van- 
ishes, and  that  which  was  to  prove  that  Moses  did  not  write 
Deuteronomy  is  no  mean  i:)roof  that  he  did. 

5.  Eating  that  which  Dies  of  Itself,  or  is  Torn  by  a  Beast. 
The  statutes  on  this  subject,  taken  in  the  order  which  they 
have  in  the  Scriptures,  are  these: 

"And  ye  shall  be  holy  men  unto  me;  therefore  ye  shall 
not  eat  any  flesh  that  is  torn  of  beasts  in  the  field;  ye  shall 
cast  it  to  the  dogs"  (Ex.  xxii.  31).  This  is  the  first  mention 
of  the  subject,  and  the  only  specification  is  flesh  torn  by  a 
beast.      The  persons  prohibited  from  eating  it  are  the  Jews. 

"And  every  soul  that  eateth  that  which  dietli  of  itself,  or 
that  which  is  torn  of  beasts,  Avhether  he  be  homeborn  or   a 


70  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

stranger,  lie  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water, 
and  be  unclean  until  the  even:  then  shall  he  be  clean.  But  if 
he  wash  them  not,  nor  bathe  his  flesh,  tiien  shall  he  bear  his 
iniquity"  (Lev.  xvii.  15,  16).  Here  the  specification  of  flesh 
that  dieth  of  itself  is  added,  and  the  penalty  of  eating  it  is  pre-- 
scribed.  It  simply  made  the  person  unclean  with  that  par- 
ticular kind  of  uncleanness  which  was  removed  the  same  day 
by  washing  the  clothes  and  bathing  the  flesh.  Clearly  this  is 
an  addition  to  the  original  law,  not  a  contradiction  of  it. 

''Ye  shall  not  eat  of  anything  that  dieth  of  itself:  thou 
mayest  give  it  to  the  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates,  that 
he  may  eat  it;  or  thou  mayest  sell  it  to  a  foreigner:  for  thou 
art  a  holy  people  in  Jehovah  thy  God"  (Deut.  xiv.  21). 

Taking  the  three  statutes  together,  the  matter  stands  thus: 
The  Hebrew  is  forbidden  in  all  three  to  eat  of  the  flesh  referred 
to.  He  is  told  to  throw  it  to  the  dogs  or  he  may  give  it  or  sell 
it  to  strangers.  The  reason  for  the  prohibition  is,  not  that 
the  flesh  was  unhealthy,  but  that  eating  it,  like  eating  any  of 
tlie  unclean  animals  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verses  of  the 
passage  in  Deuteronomy,  made  the  person  legally  unclean. 
The  "stranger"  or  the  "foreigner"  is  not  in  either  passage  for- 
bidden to  eat  it;  but  if  he  does,  he,  like  the  Jew,  must  bathe 
his  flesh  and  wash  his  clothes.  i 

An  unsophisticated  mind  would  not  dream  of  a  conflict 
between  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  law,  but  not  so  with  our 
critics.  Professor  Driver,  who  fairly  though  very  briefly  rep- 
resents them  all,  says  of  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy : 

It  is  in  conflict  with  the  law  of  Leviticus;  for  in  Deuteronomy 
what  is  prohibited  to  the  Israelite  is  allowed  to  be  given  to  the 
"stranger"  or  "foreigner"  resident  in  Israel,  whereas  in  Leviticus  it 
is  forbidden  to  both  alike  (except  under  the  condition  of  a  subse- 
quent purification).  The  Israelite  and  the  stranger  are  thus  placed 
on  different  footings  in  Deuteronomy;  they  are  placed  on  the  same 
footing  in  Leviticus  (Com.,  165). 

The  conflict  here  so  positively  asserted  does  not  exist. 
The  reader  can  see,  by  a  glance  at  the  passage  quoted  above 
from  Leviticus,  that  the  eating  in  question  is  not  "forbidden 
to  both  alike,"  neither  is  it  formally  forbidden  to  either.      It 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  71 

is  simply  ordered  that  if  either  eat  the  flesh  that  dieth  of 
itself,  or  is  torn  by  beasts,  he  shall  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe 
himself  in  water.  The  two  are  treated  alike  onl)'  in  that 
which  follows  the  eating,  not  in  the  prohibition  of  the  latter. 
And  in  Deuteronomy  there  is  nothing  to  relieve  from  this 
washing  and  bathing  the  stranger  to  whom  the  flesh  may  be 
given  by  a  Jew,  It  was  not  required  of  strangers  and  for- 
eigners tliat  they  should  be  "holy  unto  Jehovah,"  and  conse- 
quently some  things  forbidden  the  Jews,  in  order  to  their 
ceremonial  holiness,  were  permitted  to  the  foreigner  who  might 
reside  among  them.  The  Jew  was  forbidden  to  eat  the  flesh 
of  any  quadrui>ed  that  did  not  chew^  the  cud  and  part  the  hoof ; 
but  the  stranger  might  freely  eat  of  any  forbidden  flesh,  and 
the  Jew  might  sell  it  tO'  him  if  he  had  it  for  sale. 

This  privilege  of  selling  to  strangers  flesh  that  died  of 
itself  has  been  criticised  on  moral  grounds.  It  has  been  com- 
pared to  the  act  of  oifering  such  flesh  in  our  markets — a  prac- 
tice forbidden  by  law.  But  it  is  not  implied  in  the  law  of 
Moses  that  the  seller  of  such  flesh  might  lie  to  his  foreign  cus- 
tomer by  telling  him  that  the  animal  had  been  slaughtered 
in  the  usual  way;  it  is  clearly  implied  that  it  was  to  be  sold 
for  what  it  was.  The  fact  that  the  heathen  had  no  scruples 
about  eating  such  flesh,  as  many  heathen  have  none  at  the 
present  day,  removes  Irom  the  transaction  the  thought  of 
deception  and  the  temptation  to  it. 

6.  As  to  Hebrew  Bondservants.  Our  destructive  critics 
afl^ect  to  find  several  contradictions  in  the  laws  regulating  the 
bondage  to  which .  Hebrew  men  and  women  w^ere  liable.  In 
both  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  it  is  provided  that  a  Hebrew 
sold  to  one  of  his  brethren  shall  serve  him  only  six  years;  but 
if,  at  the  end  of  that  time,  he  prefers  to  remain  in  bondage, 
the  master  shall  bore  a  hole  in  his  ear  with  an  awl,  and  he  shall 
remain  a  bondman  for  life.  In  Exodus  it  is  provided  that  tliis 
boring  shall  be  done  before  the  judges  (rendered  "God"  in 
K.  v.),  evidently  to  guard  against  fraud;  for  the  judges  would 
be  disinterested  witnesses  that  the  bondman  had  given  his  free 
consent.       In  Deuteronomy   Moses  omits   this  provision,    and 


72  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

simply  says,  "Thou  shalt  take  an  awl,  and  thrust  it  through  his 
ear  unto  the  door,  and  he  shall  be  thy  servant  forever"  (xv. 
17).  The  door  would  be  a  firm  substance  against  which  to 
press  the  ear  before  piercing  it,  thus  lessening  the  pain  and 
preventing  laceration.  It  is  on  this  oimission  in  Deuteronomy 
that  a  charge  of  contradiction  is  based.  Eobeirtson  Smith 
(Prophets,  100),  Driver  and  Addis  (D.  of  H.,  xlviii.),  for 
instance,  following  their  German  leaders,^  claim  that  because 
the  law  in  Exodus  says  that  the  bondsei'vant  must  be  brought 
to  God  (the  judges)  for  the  ceremony  of  boring,  he  must  be 
brought  to  a  sanctuary.  Smith  and  Driver  say  to  "the  sanc- 
tuary," while  Addis  says  to  "a  local  sanctuary."  But,  inas- 
much as  this  requirement  is  omitted  in  Deuteronomy,  it  is 
inferred  that  in  the  latter  we  have  a  different  law.  Driver 
states  the  inference  thus: 

In  Exodus  the  ceremony  is  a  public  and  official  one;  in  Deute- 
ronomy it  is  of  a  purely  domestic  character,  being  transacted  entirely 
at  the  master's  own  house   {Com.,  184). 

This  inference  is  very  disparaging  to  the  good  sense  of  the 
"Deuteronomist ;"  for  if  he  was  a  man  of  the  least  reflection, 
he  would  see  that  to  give  the  owner  of  a  bondservant  the  right 
to  bore  the  ear  of  the  latter  as  a  purely  domestic  ceremony, 
without  the  presence  and  cognizance  of  disinterested  witnesses, 
would  place  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  servant  entire'ly  in 
the  hands  of  an  unscrupulous  owner,  and  would  thus  prac- 
tically nullify  the  law  of  release  at  the  end  of  six  years.  The 
hole  in  the  ear  was  the  mark  of  perpetual  bondage  voluntarily 
assumed ;  and  if  the  boring  was  done  in  private,  though  done 
without  the  bondman's  consent^  his  subsequent  denial  that  he 
had  given  his  consent  would  be  of  no  avail  against  the  testi- 
mony of  his  master  and  members  of  his  family  whom  he  might 
suborn  as  witnesses.  The  Deuteronomist,  whoever  he  was, 
was  a  friend  of  his  people,  and  especially  of  the  poor;  and  he 
was  incapable  of  inventing    such    a    law.       The    inference    is 

'They  follow  Kuenen,  who  says:  "The  Hebrew  slave  who  volun- 
tarily entered  into  servitude  for  life,  had  to  make  his  declaration  to 
that  effect  in  the  sanctuary,  in  order  to  add  to  the  solemnity  of  his 
act — Cap.  xxi.  6"  {Bel.  of  Israel,  II.  83). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  73 

equally  disparaging  to  the  piety  of  tlie  Douteronoanist ;  for  it 
is  admitted  by  the  three  gentlemen  quoted  above,  and  by  all 
who  style  themselves  "evangelical  critics,"  that  the  law  in 
Exodus  was  actually  one  of  those  given  by  Moses;  and  it  is 
held  tliat  the  Deuteronomist  framed  his  laws  after  the  model 
of  those  given  by  Moses:  how,  then,  could  he  have  deliberately 
deprived  the  Ilebre^v  bondman  of  the  safeguard  prescribed  by 
Moses,  which  protected  him  from  being  kept  in  perpetual 
bondage  by  an  unscrupulous  master  ?  And  even  if  the  Deute- 
ronomist was  base  enough  to  devise  such  a  law,  how  can  these 
critics  account  for  the  fact  that  it  was  axxjepted  by  the  people 
in  opposition  to  the  law  of  Moses  ?  These  questions  they  have 
not  attempted  to  answer,  neither  do  they  seem  to  have  suffi- 
ciently reflected  on  their  scheme  to  see  that  they  could  be  pro- 
pounded. The  little  boy  Avho  builds  his  first  cob  house  seldom 
sees  how  easily  it  can  be  toppled  over  until  some  other  boy 
tries  it.  "Modem  scientific  critics"  ought  to  have  more 
foresight. 

The  common-sense  view  of  the  omission  in  Deuteronomy' 
is  this:  that  Moses,  having  already  given,  for  an  obvious 
reason,  the  requirement  that  the  bondman's  free  consent  must 
be  expressed  in  the  presence  of  the  judges,  and  that  in  their 
presence  the  hole  should  be  bored  in  his  ear  as  further  proof 
that  consent  had  been  given,  in  repeating  the  law  left  out  a 
part  which  no  man  who  had  once  heard  it,  or  heard  of  it,  could 
ever  forget.  It  looks  like  malice  to  claim  here  a  contradiction 
between  the  two  laws.  It  is  a  simple  case  of  omission.  The 
idea  of  going  to  a  sanctuary  is  invented  by  these  critics.  If 
going  to  God,  as  they  themselves  testify,  means  going  to  the 
judges  who  execute  God's  law,  then  wherever  the  judges  were 
they  might  go.  But  the  law  required  that  judges  be  appointed 
in  every  city  (Deut.  xvi.  18-20),  and  the  judges  in  the  master's 
own  city  would  in  this  case  be  preferred  as  the  most  convenient 
witnesses  in  case  of  subsequent  dispute.  In  actual  experience 
bondmen  were  sometimes  held  unlawfully  (Jer.  xxxiv.  8-22). 
In  passing,  we  may  remark  that  Driver  forgets  himself  while 


74  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

speaking  on  this  subject,  and  styles  the  ceremony  as  "nailing 
his  eiar  to  the  door  of  his  master's  house"  (184). 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  affirmed  that  these  two  laws  con- 
tradict each  other  in  reference  to  the  term  of  service  of  a 
Hebrew  bondwoman.  In  Exodus  it  is  said,  "If  a  man  sell  his 
daughter  to  be  a  maidsCTvant,  she  shall  not  go  out  as  the  men- 
servants  do"  (xxi.  7).  In  Deuteronomy,  after  the  direction 
about  boring  the  ear  of  the  manservant  with  an  awl,  it  is  said, 
"And  also  unto  thy  maidservant  shalt  tliou  do  likewise" 
(xv.  17). 

Driver  comments  on.  the  apparent  conflict  as  follows: 

No  doubt  the  true  explanation  of  the  variation  is  that  the  law  of 
Deuteronomy  springs  from  a  more  advanced  stage  of  society  than  the 
law  of  Exodus;  it  thus  regulated  usage  for  an  age  in  which  the  power 
of  the  father  over  his  daughter  was  no  longer  so  absolute  as  it  had 
been  in  more  primitive  times,  and  places  the  two  sexes  on  a  position 
of  equality  (Com.,  182  f.). 

It  is  quite  certain  that  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  does  put 
the  man  and  the  woman  spoken  of  in  a  position  of  equality; 
but  whether  this  conflicts  with  the  law  in  Exodus  depends 
entirely  upon  whether  the  same  bondwoman  is  meant  in  both 
places.  Undoubtedly  the  woman  in  Deuteronomy  is  one  who, 
like  the  manservant  mentioned  in  the  same  law,  has  the  right 
to  go  out  of  bondage  at  the  end  of  six  years,  but  voluntarily 
consents  to  remain  in  possession  of  her  master.  As  evidence 
of  her  consent,  her  ear  is  to  be  bored  "likewise."  But  in 
Exodus  a  particular  case  is  specified,  that  of  a  daughter  sold 
by  her  father;  and  the  context  shows  plainly  that,  whether 
originally  intended  or  not,  the  daughter  became  the  concubine 
of  her  master  or  his  son.  The  statute  on  the  subject,  when 
quoted  as  Driver  quotes  it,  is  really  misquoted,  because  only 
a  small  part  is  quoted,  and  a  part  which  does  not  fairly  repre- 
sent the  whole.      It  reads  thus: 

"And  if  a  man  sell  his  daughter  to  be  a  maidservant,  she  shall 
not  go  out  as  the  menservants  do.  If  she  please  not  her  master,  who 
has  espoused  her  to  himself,  then  shall  he  let  her  be  redeemed:  to 
sell  her  unto  a  strange  people  he  shall  have  no  power,  seeing  he  hath 
dealt  deceitfully  with  her.  And  if  he  espouse  her  unto  his  son,  he 
shall  deal  with  her  after  the  manner  of  daughters.  If  he  take  him 
another  wife,  her  food,  her  raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage,  shall 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  75 

he  not  diminish.     And  if  he  do  not  these  three  unto  her,  then  shall 
she  go  out  for  nothing,  without  money"  (xxi.  7-11). 

There  are  at  least  two  very  obvious  reasons  for  tliese  regu- 
lations resjjecting  this  kind  of  a  bondwoman.  First.,  the  fact 
that  the  daughter  would  not  go  free  at  the  end  of  six  years 
would  discourage  the  sale  of  daughters,  and  prompt  a  poor 
man,  if  he  w^as  compelled  to  part  with  one  of  his  children,  to 
sell  a  son  instead  of  a  daughter.  Second,  after  she  had  lived 
wdth  her  master  or  one  of  his  sons  as  a  concubine  for  six  years, 
it  would  be  a  hardship  for  her,  whether  with  children  or  with- 
out children,  to  go  out  free  and  struggle  for  her  own  support. 
She  would  be  in  the  condition  of  a  divorced  wife  without  ali- 
mony. While  concubinage  was  tolerated,  it  would  be  almost 
inevitable  that  a  young  woman,  living  in  a  family  for  six 
years,  and  being  of  the  same  people,  and  perhaps  more  attrac- 
tive than  her  master's  wife  or  daughters,  would  be  used  as  a 
concubine  by  some  male  member  of  the  family;  and  conse- 
quently when  her  father  sold  her,  he  must  have  done  so  with 
this  expectation  in  view,  whether  it  was  specified  in  the  con- 
tract or  not.  The  law  recognized  this  fact,  and  ti'C'ated  the  case 
accordingly.     The  law  is  so  understood  by  Andrew  Harpe-r.^ 

If,  now,  we  suppose,  as  the  recoa-d  represents,  that  this  law 
was  made  at  Mount  Sinai,  and  that  Moses,  at  the  end  of  the 
forty  years,  delivered  the  speeches  in  Deuteronomy,  that  which 
he  says  about  a  bondwoman  going  ont  at  the  end  of  six  years 
would  necessarily  be  understood  by  his  hearers  as  including 
only  those  bondwomen  who  had  come  into  bondage  in  some 
other  way  than  by  being  sold  by  their  fathers.  They  would 
be  already  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the  latter  class  were 
to  be  bondwomen  for  life.  It  is  true  that  if  the  latter  was  the 
only  way  in  which  a  woman  could  be  reduced  to  bondage,  the 
later  law  would  have  to  be  understood  as  repealing  the  former ; 
but  the  natural  probability  is  that  the  sale  of  a  daughter  was  a 
rarely  exceptional  case,  and  that  the  gi*eat  majority  of  bond- 

'  "The  power  which  parents  had  over  their  children  in  Israel  was 
extensive,  though  not  much  less  so  than  that  possessed,  for  example, 
by  Roman  parents.  A  father  could  sell  his  daughters  to  be  espoused 
as  subordinate  wives — Ex.  xxi.  7"   (Com.,  83). 


76  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

women  were  the  wives  of  men  who  sold  themselves  and  their 
families.  In  this  case,  he  and  his  went  ont  free  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventh  year. 

We  may  remark  before  leaving  this  subject,  that  the  case 
of  a  wife  given  to  a  bondman  in  the  time  of  his  service,  men- 
tioned in  the  law  of  Exodus  (xxi.  4),  is  undoubtedly  one  in 
which  the  woman  given  was  a  heathen  bondwoman,  who,  with 
her  children,  was  held  in  perpetual  bondage,  and  was  not 
released  even  in  the  jubile  (Lev.  xxv.  44-46).  Ko  other  bond- 
woman was  so  under  her  master's  control  that  he  could  thus 
give  her  to  a  bondman.  His  Hebrew  neighbor's  daughter,  if 
he  held  one,  could  be  given  as  a  wife  or  concubine  only  to  his 
own  son,  as  we  have  just  seen  above. 

The  third  provision  of  the  law  of  bondage  in  which  a  con- 
flict is  claimed,  is  that  concerning  release  in  the  year  of 
jubile.     Driver  puts  the  charge  of  discrepancy  in  these  words: 

There  is  a  third  law  of  slavery  in  Lev.  xxv.  39-46  (H  and  P). 
By  this  law  (1)  only  foreigners  are  to  be  held  by  Israelites  as  slaves 
for  life;  (2)  Hebrew  slaves  are  to  receive  their  liberty,  not,  as  in 
Exodus  and  Deuteronomy,  in  the  seventh  year  of  servitude,  but  in  the 
year  of  jubile  (Com.,  185). 

This  is  not  a  fair  statement  of  the  case;  for  if  tlie  law  of 
release  in  the  seventh  year  had  been  given  already,  as  it  claims 
to  have  been,  the  law  that  all  in  bondage  Avhen  the  year  of 
jubile  arrives  must  be  released,  would  necessarily  mean  that 
all  not  previously  released  under  the  operation  of  the  older 
law  must  then  be  released ;  and  it  is  unfair  to  say  that  "Hebrew 
slaves  are  to  receive  their  liberty,  not,  as  in  Exodus  and  Deute- 
ronomy, in  the  seventh  year."  They  were  to  receive  their  lib- 
erty in  the  seventh  year,  as  a  general  rule ;  but,  if  any  did  not, 
they  were  to  receive  it  in  the  jubile. 

Driver  further  says: 

The  usual  mode  of  harmonizing  these  discrepant  provisions  is  by 
the  assumption  that  the  law  in  Leviticus  is  intended  to  provide  that, 
if  the  jubile  year  arrives  before  a  Hebrew  slave's  seventh  year  ot 
service,  he  is  to  receive  his  liberty  in  it.  But  if  this  had  been  the 
true  explanation  of  the  discrepancy,  a  law  so  circumstantial  as  that  in 
Leviticus  would  surely  have  contained  some  explicit  reference  to  the 
earlier  law,  and  the  case  in  which  it  was  intended  to  supersede  it 
would  have  been  distinctly  stated  (185). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  11 

If  Professor  Driver  had  written  the  law,  perhaps  it  would 
have  contained  such  a  reference;  but  the  method  of  Hebrew 
writers  was  less  artificial  than  that  of  modern  writers,  and 
many  things  were  left,  as  in  the  natural  world,  for  discovery 
by  the  reader.  But  even  if  Driver  had  been  the  writer,  he 
could  not  have  made  the  reference  on  the  groimd  on  which  he 
claims  that  the  author  of  Leviticus  should  have  made  it- — that 
the  present  law  was  ''intended  to  supersede"  the  one  in  Exodus. 
According  to  the  explanation  which  he  combats,  the  law  was 
intended,  so  far  as  six-year  Hebrew  bondmen  were  conceamed, 
only  to  release  those  whom  the  previous  law  had  failed  to 
release.  His  only  reply  to  the  explanation  would  be  a  denial 
that  any  would  thus  fail  to  be  released  by  the  previous  law. 
But  this  he  could  not  say;  for  it  is  as  plain  as  day  that  a  law 
which  released  bondmen  only  after  six  years  of  service,  would 
fail  to  release  before  the  jubile  all  who  had  been  reduced  to 
bondage  within  less  than  five  years  previous.  The  jubile 
came  every  fiftieth  year ;  so  if  a  Hebrew  was  sold  in  the  forty- 
fifth,  or  in  any  later  up  to  the  forty-ninth,  he  would  have  one 
or  more  years  longer  to  serve  when  the  fiftieth  year  began. 
That  which  Driver  treats  as  an  assumption,  then,  was  an 
inevitable  fact,  and  nothing  but  the  blinding  effect  of  a  theory 
to  be  supported  can  account  for  his  failure  to  see  it. 

But  this  usual  explanation,  though  good  so  far  as  it  goes, 
does  not  bring  out  all  the  truth.  The  jubile  would  find  other 
Hebrews  in  bondage  besides  those  who  had  not  served  out  their 
six  years.  The  man  and  the  woman  whose  ears  had  been 
bored,  if  still  alive,  would  be  released,  and,  whether  they  were 
alive  or  dead,  their  children  would  be  released.  So  also  would 
all  thieves  who  had  not  served  out  the  time  for  which  they  had 
been  sold;  for  if  a  thief,  being  unable  to  make  the  restitution 
required  by  the  law,  was  sold  for  four  years'  service  at  a  time 
less  than  four  years  before  the  jubile,  the  jubile  would  release 
him  for  the  remnant  of  his  time;  for  the  force  of  the  law  of 
jubile  was  to  release  every  bondman  and  bondwoman  of 
Hebrew  blood,  for  whatever  cause  they  had  been  reduced  to 
bondage,  and  to  restore  every  one  to  the  landed  inheritance  of 


78  THE  AUTHORSHIP  UF 

his  fathers.  Kightlj  understood,  then,  there  was  only  this  dif- 
ference between  this  law  and  the  others,  that  the  jubile 
released  every  one  who  had  not  been  released  by  the  force  of 
the  other  two  laws. 

7.  As  to  the  Decalogue.  That  the  Ten  Commandments 
originated  with  Moses  is  firmly  held  by  the  conservative  critics, 
though  denied  by  the  radicals.^  The  reader  may  find  in 
Andrew  Harper's  Commentary  an  eloquent  and  conclusive 
argument  on  this  question,  and  also,  in  opposition  to  Well- 
hausen  and  Kuenen,  a  demonstrative  proof  that  the  religion  of 
Israel  in  the  beginning  was  not  polytheistic,  as  they  and  other 
infidels  affirm.  But  that  these  Ten  Commandments  Avere  all 
given  by  Moses  in  the  form  which  they  now  bear,  is  denied  by 
even  the  conservatives;  and  the  merits  of  this  denial  we  are 
now  to  consider. 

The  controversy  turns  chiefly  upon  the  reasons  appended 
to  the  Fourth  and  Fifth  Commandments,  and  upon  certain 
variations  of  expression  in  the  Tenth.  It  is  held  that  in  their 
original  form  all  of  them  were  without  any  reasons  attached — 
that  they  read  thus: 

"Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thyself  any  graven  imaga" 

"Remember  the  sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy." 

"Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother." 

All  the  other  words  now  connected  with  these  are  said  to 
be  later  additions,  some  made  by  the  author  of  Deuteronomy, 

*  Kuenen  says:  "Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  throw  doubt  on  the 
very  existence  of  Moses;  others  have  denied  that  we  are  entitled  any 
longer  to  regard  him  as  Israel's  lawgiver.  This  latter  assertion  espe- 
cially deserves  serious  consideration.  It  is  quite  certain  that  nearly 
all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  date  from  much  later  times:  if  no  diffi- 
culty was  experienced  in  ascribing  to  him  these  more  recent  ordinan- 
ces, what  guarantee  have  we  that  he  promulgated  any  one  of  the 
laws?"  (Rel.  of  Israel,  I.  272).  "Even  the  'ten  words'  have  not  come 
down  to  us  unaltered,  so  that  none  of  them  can  be  attributed  to  Moses 
without  further  inquiry"  (ib.,  139).  "It  need  not  be  repeated  here  that 
Moses  bequeathed  no  book  of  the  law  to  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Certain- 
ly nothing  more  was  committed  to  writing  by  him  or  in  his  time 
than  the  'ten  words'  in  their  original  form"  {ib.,  II.  7).  Wellhausen 
says:  "If  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  ceases  as  a  whole  to  be 
regarded  as  authentic  for  our  Knowledge  of  what  Mosaism  was,  it  be- 
comes a  somewhat  precarious  matter  to  make  any  exception  in  favor 
of  the  Decalogue"  (Art.  "Israel,"  Encyc.  Brit.,  Sec.  1). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  79 

and  others  by  the  supposed  redactors  of  Exodus,  The  differ- 
ences betAveen  the  two  fonns  of  the  Fourth,  Fifth  and  Tenth, 
Driver  presents  by  printing  these  three  in  parallel  columns, 
which  we  here  reprotluce.  The  italics  in  the  right-hand 
column  show  additions  and  changes  made  by  the  Deute- 
ronomist : 

EXOUl'S.  UEUTEUONOMY. 

"Remember  the  sabbath   day,  to  keep  it  '■'■  Observe  the  sabbath  day  to  keep  It  holy, 

holy.  Six  days  Shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  an  Jeliovah  lliy  God  contmaniied  t/iee.  Six 
work:  but  the  seventh  day  is  a  sabbath  unto  days  shalt  thou  labor  and  do  all  thy  work: 
Jehovah  thy  God:  in  it  thou  shall  not  do  any  but  the  seventh  day  is  a  sabbath  unto  Jeho- 
work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  vah  thy  God:  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any 
thy  manservant,  nor  thy  maidservant,  nor  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter, 
thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy  iior  thy  manservant,  nor  thy  maidservant, 
gates:  for  in  six  days  Jehovah  made  heaven,  nor  thine  ox,  nor  thine  ass,  nor  any  o/ thy 
and  earth,  and  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that  Is  within  thy 
and  rested  the  seventh  day:  therefore  Jeho-  gates:  in  order  that  thy  manservant  and 
vah  blessed  the  seventh  day, and  hallowed  thy  maidseri^ant  may  rest  us  icell  as  thou. 
It."  And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thoii  irast  a 

servant  in  the  land  of  Eyypt,  and  Jehovah 
thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence  by  a  mighty 
hand  and  by  a  stretched  out  arm:  therefore 
Jehovah  thy  God  cominanded  thee  to  keep  the 
sabbath  day.'' 

"Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother:   that  "  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  vaotheT,as  Je- 

thy  days  may  be  long  in  the  land  which  Jeho-  hovah  thy  God  commanded  thee:  th&t  thy 
vah  thy  God  is  giving  thee."  days  may  be  long,  and  that  it  may   be  icell 

with  thee,  upon  the  land  which  Jehovah  thy 
God  giveth  thee." 

"Thou    shalt>   not    covet     thy    neighbors  '■'And  thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 

house,  thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  >'ife;  and  thou  shalt  not  desire  thy  neigh- 
wife,  or  his  manservant,  or  his  maidservant,  bor's  house,  his  field,  or  his  manservant,  or 
or  his  ox.  or  his  ass,  or  any  thing  that  is  thy  his  maidservant,  or  his  ox,  or  his  ass,  or  any 
neighbor's.  '  thing  that  is  thy  neighbor's  (Int.,  33  ff.) 

On  this  exhibit  Driver  remarks:  ''The  principal  variations 
are  in  agreement  with  the  style  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the 
author's  hand  is  recognizable  in  them."  Let  this  be  granted, 
and  what  does  it  prove  ?  If  Moses  was  the  author  of  both 
books,  it  proves  only  that  his  style  in  Deuteronomy  is  different 
from  that  in  Exodus.  In  other  words,  it  shows  that  in  deliv- 
ering an  oration  on  laws  that  he  had  given,  he  adopted  a  style 
diffei-'ent  from  that  in  which  he  wrote  the  laws.  And  what 
w^riter  of  statute  laws  that  ever  lived  would  not  do  the  same? 
Let  a  lawyer,  in  commenting  on  a  deed  written  for  his  client, 
speak  in  the  style  in  which  deeds  to  real  estate  are  commonly 
written,  and  how  long  would  a  jury  listen  to  him  ?  Or  let  a 
political  orator,  advocating  a  tariff  bill,  speak  in  the  style  of 
the  bill,  and  how  long  would  his  party  keep  him  on  the  stump  ? 
If  another  than  Moses  Avrote  Deuteronomy,  he,  of  course,  wrote 
naturally  in  a  style  different  from  that  of  Exodus ;  and  if 
Moses  wrote  it,  he,  as  a  matter  of  course,  purposely  did  the 
same.      It  is  nonsense,  then,  to  argue  from  the  difference  of 


80  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

style  that  the  two  foniis  of  these  eommandments  were  written 
by  different  authors. 

As  to  the  origin  of  the  supposed  additions  to  the  original 
form  of  these  three  conunandments,  various  conjectures  have 
been  advanced  by  critics,  which  would  be  wt>rthy  of  considera- 
tion if  there  was  any  proof  that  additions  have  been  made. 
Labor  spent  in  the  effort  is  like  that  of  the  French 
savants  who  labored  hard  to  answer  Ben  Franklin's  question, 
why  a  vessel  entirely  filled  with  water  would  not  run  over  if  a 
ten-pound  fish  were  put  into  it.  Driver,  after  mentioning 
some  of  these,  decides  that  the  more  probable  view  is  that 
"these  clauses  are  in  their  original  place  in  Exodus,"  and  that 
the  additions  in  Deuteronomy  are  "of  the  nature  of  further 
comments  upon  the  text  of  Exodus."  If  he  had  added  to  this 
remark  the  supposition  that  those  in  Exodus  were  not  addi- 
tions at  all,  but  that  Moses  wrote  them,  he  would  have  dis- 
played still  better  judgment. 

If  we  examine  more  closely  the  added  words  and  clauses 
in  Deuteronomy,  we  shall  find  that  they  are  such  as  would 
most  naturally  be  made  by  Moses  in  repeating  oratorically  to 
the  people  laws  which  he  had  previously  given,  expanding  some 
of  them  for  the  sake  of  making  them  more  explicit,  and  adding 
here  and  there  a  motive  to  obedience.  For  instance,  in  the 
Fourth  Commandment,  where  Exodus  has  "nor  thy  cattle," 
Deuteronomy  has  "nor  thine  ox,  nor  thine  ass,  nor  any  of  thy 
cattle" — naming  the  ox  and  the  ass,  lest  some  one  might  sup- 
pose that  they  were  not  included  in  "cattle,"  and  also  putting 
emphasis  on  the  sabbath  rest  for  the  two  classes  of  animals 
which  were  most  given  to  work.  The  motive  presented  for 
keeping  the  sabbath,  that  Jehovah  had  delivered  them  from 
servitude  in  Egypt,  was  an  appeal  to  their  sense  of  gratitude. 
It  was  not  given  as  the  reason  why  God  had  sanctified  the 
seventh  day,  but  as  a  reason  why  Israel  should  ohserve  it: 
"therefore  Jehovah  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the  sab- 
bath day."  The  reason  why  God  had  hallowed  the  seventh 
day,  because  in  creation  he  had  rested  on  the  seventh  day,  had 
been  given  in  Exodus ;  and  so  far  as  it  furnished  a  reason  for 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  81 

keeping  the  sabbath,  it  was  a  reason  applicable  to  all  men. 
Moses,  without  repeating  that,  gives  Israel  a  s^^ecial  reason 
why  they  should  keep  it,  whether  others  did  or  not;  and  the 
reason  is,  gratitude  to  God  for  giving  them  rest  from  the  servi- 
tude in  Egypt.  It  was  easy  for  every  one  who  heard  him, 
and  who  had  ever  heard  or  read  the  original  commandment,  to 
see  that  at  this  point  he  was  not  quoting  the  commandment, 
but  adding  a  motive  foa*  its  observance. 

The  addition  in  the  Fifth  Commandment,  ''that  it  may  be 
well  with  thee,"  is  but  an  expansion  of  the  preceding  clause, 
"that  thy  days  may  be  long."  A  man's  days  may  be  long,  and 
yet  full  of  misfortunes.  They  were  to  understand  that  on 
condition  of  keeping  this  commandment  they  would  have 
length  of  days  without  misfortunes. 

The  variations  in  the  Tenth  Commandment  are  only  a 
reversal  of  the  order  in  which  the  neighbor's  wife  and  his  house 
are  mentioned,  which  is  insig-nificant,  and  the  addition  of  "his 
field,"  which  is  included  in  the  expression,  "any  thing  which 
is  thy  neighlx)r's." 

There  is  another  consideration  connected  with  these 
changes  which  has  been  entirely  overlooked  by  our  critics. 
Their  seventh-century  author  of  Deuteronomy  did  not,  accord- 
ing to  their  o^vn  hypothesis,  write  in  his  own  name,  but  in  the 
name  of  Moses.  He  wrote  what  he  supposed  Moses  would 
have  said  if  he  had  really  delivered  the  discourses  which  are 
ascribed  to  him.  Evidently,  then,  he  thought  that  it  would 
have  been  proi>er  for  Moses  to  have  spoken  these  additional 
words  and  clauses.  In  this  he  showed  his  good  sense,  and  con- 
denms  the  critics  who  created  him. 

There  is  another  s^^eculation  of  the  critics  which  here 
deserves  a  passing  notice.  It  has  reference  to  the  oxen  and 
asses  and  fields  mentioned  in  the  Fourth  and  Tenth  Command- 
ments.     It  is  stated  by  Andrew  Harper  in  these  words: 

If  the  original  form  of  these  commandments  was  what  we  have 
indicated,  they  correspond  entirely  to  the  circumstances  of  the  wilder- 
ness. There  is  no  reference  in  them  which  presupposes  any  other 
social  background  than  that  of  a  people  dwelling  together  according 
to  families,   possessing  property,  and  worshiping  Yahweh.     None   of 


82  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

the  commandments  involves  a  social  state  different  from  that.  But 
when  Israel  had  entered  upon  its  heritage,  and  had  become  possessed 
of  the  oxen  and  asses  which  were  needed  in  agricultural  labor  and  in 
settled  life,  this  stage  of  their  progress  was  reflected  in  the  reasons 
and  inducements  which  were  added  to  the  original  commands.  In 
the  Fourth  and  Tenth  Commandments  in  Exodus,  we  have,  conse- 
quently, the  essential  commandments  of  the  earlier  day  adapted  to  a 
new  state  of  things;  i.e.,  to  a  settled  agricultural  life  (Com.,  96). 

It  is  difficult  to  treat  siicli  talk  as  this  witli  seriousness. 
Mr.  Harper  knows  very  well  that  desert  tribes,  such  as  he  sup- 
poses Israel  to  have  been,  are  always  owners  of  oxen  and  asses, 
except  where  they  are  extremely  poor.  It  is  notoriously  true 
of  the  Bedawin  tribes,  who  occupy  the  same  wilderness  at  the 
present  time.  Indeed,  their  chief  industry  is  the  rearing  of 
herds  of  cattle,  asses  and  camels.  Furthermore,  how  ridicu- 
lous it  is  to  suppose  that,  even  if  Israel  had  not  a  hoof  of  such 
animals  in  the  wilderness,  Moses,  in  giving  them  laws  for  their 
future  guidance,  must  omit  the  mention  of  animals  which  he 
knew  they  would  have  in  the  time  for  which  he  was  legisla- 
ting. If  one  of  these  critics  should  read  the  will  of  a  rich  man, 
in  which  he  gives  advice  to  his  children  with  reference  to  the 
proper  use  of  the  possessions  Avhich  he  bequeaths  to  them,  he 
would  sagely  conclude  that  the  will  must  have  been  written 
after  the  children  came  into  possession  of  the  property.  They 
certainly  would  if  they  had  a  theory  to  be  upheld  by  "scientific 
criticism."  Here,  again,  their  supposed  Deuteronomist  show^s 
better  judgment  than  theirs ;  for  he  thought  there  was  no  incon- 
gruity in  putting  these  words  in  the  mouth  of  Moses  in 
the  wilderness. 

Seeing  now  that  all  the  added  words  and  clauses  of  the 
Decalogue  found  in  Deuteronomy  are  just  such  as  Moses, 
repeating  the  commandments  oratorically,  could  most  properly 
employ,  and  seeing  that,  even  if  these  speeches  were  composed 
in  the  seventh  century,  the  author  of  them  himself  thought 
they  were  appropriate  in  the  lips  of  Moses,  the  adverse  critics 
are  estopped  by  the  judgment  of  their  own  Deuteronomist,  as 
well  as  by  the  maxims  of  common  sense,  from  urging  that 
Moses  could  not  have  been  the  author  of  both  foiTas. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  83 

8.  As  to  Certain  Acts  of  j\Ioses  at  Mount  Sinai.  There 
are  several  alleged  contradictions  between  the  accounts  in 
Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  of  certain  acts  of  Moses  while  the 
camp  was  still  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Sinai.  The  first  we  shall 
mention  has  reference  to  his  appointment  of  judges  of  tens, 
himdreds,  thousands,  to  assist  him  in  administering  justice. 
The  case  is  presented  by  Driver  in  these  words : 

In  i.  9-13  the  plan  of  appointing  judges  to  assist  Moses  is  repre- 
sented as  originating  with  Moses  himself,  complaining  to  the  people 
of  the  difficulty  that  he  found  in  dealing  personally  with  the  number 
of  cases  that  arose;  the  people  assent  to  the  proposal,  and  Moses 
selects  the  judges  accordingly.  In  Ex.  xviii.  13-26  the  plan  is  referred 
entirely  to  the  advice  of  Jethro;  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  difficulty 
felt  by  Moses;  and  Moses  takes  action  without  at  all  consulting  the 
people  ( Coin.,  xxxv. ) .  * 

This  passage  opens  with  a  misstatement.  It  is  not  said  in 
i.  9-13  that  the  plan  originated  with  Moses.  If  this  had  been 
said,  there  would  have  been  a  contradiction.  The  passage  reads 
thus :  "And  I  spake  to  you  at  that  time,  saying,  I  am  not  able 
to  bear  you  myself  alone;  Jehovah  your  God  hath  multiplied 
you,  and,  behold,  ye  are  this  day  like  the  stars  of  heaven  for 
'multitude.  Jehovah,  the  God  of  your  fathers,  make  you  a 
thousand  times  so  many  as  ye  are,  as  he  hath  j3Tomised  you. 
How  can  I  myself  alone  bear  your  cumbrance,  and  your 
burden,  and  your  strife?" — then  comes  the  command  to  select 
the  judges.  Does  this  conflict  with  the  statement  in  Exodus 
that  Jethro  had  first  suggested  the  plan  to  Moses  before  he  sub- 
mitted it  to  the  peoj)le  ?  If  it  does,  then,  should  the  President 
of  the  United  States  submit  a  measure  to  Congress,  and  should 
it  aftenvard  be  discovered  that  it  was  suggested  to  him  by  one 
of  his  secretaries,  our  modern  scientific  critics  w^ould  find  here 
an  irreconcilable  inconsistency !  The  President,  as  everybody 
knows,  is  not  bound  to  tell  whether  the  measures  which  he  pro- 
poses originated  with  himself  or  with  some  of  his  advisers; 


°  Wellhausen,  who  denies  that  Moses  made  the  stay  at  Mount 
Sinai  described  in  Exodus,  declares  that  Jethro's  advice  was  given,  not 
at  Mount  Sinai,  but  "at  the  well  of  Kadesh"  (Art.  "Israel,"  Encyc. 
Brit..  407,  col.  1;  408,  col.  2).  In  saying  this,  he  deliberately  falsifies 
the  history  without  the  slightest  provocation. 


84  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

neither  was  Moses  obliged  to  tell  the  people  that  his  judiciary 

acheme    originated    with    Jethro.        As    Jethro    was    not    an 

Israelite,    there    may    have    been    prudence    in    withholding 

from  them  this  information  until  they  themselves  expressed 

approval  of  the  measure. 

The  second  conflict  has  reference  to  the  number  of  times 

that  Moses  ascended  the  mount,  and  fasted : 

According  to  Ex.  xxxii.  34,  Moses  was  three  times  in  the  mount 
(xxxii.  Iff.;  xxxii.  81;  xxxiv.  4);  but  it  is  only  on  the  third  occasion 
that  he  is  recorded  to  have  tasted  (xxxiv.  28).  Deuteronomy  (ix.  9), 
in  the  very  words  of  Exodus,  describes  him  as  doing  so  on  the  first 
occasion   (i&.,  xxxvi.). 

This  is  an  incorrect  representation;  for  the  ascent 
described  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  one  on  the  return  from  which 
he  broke  the  tables  of  stone  (ix.  17)  ;  and  this  was  the  second 
ascent  described,  in  Exodus.  The  first  was  when  he  was 
called  up  before  the  Ten  Commandments  were  spoken,  and 
was  sent  down  to  warn  the  i>eople  not  to  draw  near  the  mount 
(Ex.  xix.  20-25).  The  second  ascent  described  in  Deiutei-oii- 
omy  is  the  one  his  descent  from  which  is  described  in  Ex. 
xxxii.  7-9,  almost  in  the  words  of  Deuteronomy.  The  only 
difference  as  respects  fasting  is  that  it  is  mentioned  in  the 
one  account  and  omitted  in  the  other.  It  is  absurd  to  call  this 
a  contradiction.  Driver  himself  do€S  not  commit  this  absurd- 
ity; for  he  closes  the  paragraph  just  quoted  in  part,  with  the 
remark,  "Obviously  Deuteronomy  may  relate  what  is  passed 
by  in  silence  in  Exodus;  but  the  variation  is  remarkable."  It 
is  not  at  all  remarkable,  for  if,  when  Moses  delivered  the 
speeches  in  Deuteronomy,  Exodus  had  already  been  written, 
and  the  fact  made  known  to  the  people  that  he  fasted  during 
the  last  forty  days  in  the  mount,  there  was  great  propriety  in 
now  telling  them,  what  they  had  not  learned  before,  that  he  also 
fasted  during  the  first  forty  days.  In  reality,  he  was  com- 
pelled to  fast  or  be  fed  miraculously;  for  there  was  no  food 
to  be  found  on  the  naked  rock  of  which  Mount  Sinai  is  com- 
posed. To  charge  contradiction  here  is  to  betray  a  careless 
study  of  the  facts,  mingled  with  a  determined  purpose  to  make 
out  a  case. 


THE  BOOK  OP  DEUTERONOMY,  85 

The  third  specification  has  reference  to  the  point  of  time  at 
which  Moses  made  his  intercession  for  the  people: 

Chap.  ix.  25-29.  This,  it  is  plain,  must  refer  either  to  Ex.  xxxii. 
31  ff.  (Moses'  second  visit  to  the  mountain),  or  (more  probably)  to 
Ex.  xxxiv.  9,  28  (his  third  visit  to  it).  It  is  singular,  now  that 
the  terms  of  Moses'  own  intercession,  as  here  reproduced,  are  bor- 
rowed, not  from  either  of  these  passages,  but  from  xxxii.  11-13,  at 
the  close  of  his  first  forty  days  upon  the  mountain  {ib.  xxxvi.). 

Here,  again,  the  learned  author  treats  Ex.  xxxii.  31  £f.  as  an 
account  of  Moses'  second  visit  to  the  mountain,  whereas  it  is 
an  account  of  his  intercession  for  the  people  between  his  second 
and  his  third  visit.  The  words,  "And  Moses  returned  unto 
Jehovah,  and  said.  Oh,  this  people  have  sinned  a  great  sin,  and 
have  made  them  gods  of  gold"  (31),  seem  to  have  misled  him 
to  the  thought  that  the  return  was  to  the  mountain-top.  But 
the  context  shows  plainly  that  this  intercession  was  conducted 
in  the  tent  of  Moses  (cf.  vii.  11),  and  the  account  of  it  is  imme^ 
diatelj  followed  by  the  statement  that  "Jehovah  said  to  Moses, 
Hew  thee  two  tables  of  stone  like  unto  the  first:  and  I  will 
write  upon  the  tables  the  words  which  I  wrote  on  the  first 
tables,  which  thou  brakest.  And  be  ready  by  the  morning,  and 
come  up  in  the  morning  untO'  mount  Sinai,  and  present  thyself 
there  to  me  on  the  top  of  the  mount"  (xxxiv.  1,  2).  The 
account  of  the  intercession  given  in  Exodus  follows  immedi- 
ately upon  his  return  from  the  mount  when  he  broke  the  tables 
of  stone  (xxxii.  19  ff.),  and  so  it  does  in  Deuteronomy  (ix. 
17  ff.).  Tliere  is  perfect  agreement  as  to  the  occasion  of  it, 
and  the  objectors  are  again  convicted  of  inventing  the  charge 
of  contradiction,  and  misconstruing  the  text  to  sustain  it. 

The  fourth  and  last  specification  we  shall  notice  has  refer- 
ence to  the  time  at  which  the  ark  was  made  for  the  reception 
of  the  two  tables  of  stone.  It  is  claimed  that  in  Deuteronomy 
the  ark  was  made  by  Moses  just  preceding  his  return  to  the 
mount  with  the  two  new  tables  of  stone,  whereas  in  Exodus  it 
is  made  by  Bezaleel  after  Moses  returned  from  that  visit. 
The  author  places  the  two  passages  side  by  side,  and 
then  remarks : 


§6  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

There  is  only  one  material  difference  between  the  two  accounts 
but  it  is  an  important  one.  In  Ex.  xxxiv.  1-4  there  is  no  mention 
of  the  ark,  which,  according  to  Deuteronomy,  Moses  made  at  this 
time  for  the  reception  of  the  two  tables,  and  in  which  (verse  5)  he 
placed  them  after  coming  down  from  the  mount.  This  difference 
between  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  does  not  admit  of  explanation.  In 
Exodus  instructions  respecting  the  ark  are  given  in  xxv.  10-21;  and 
Bezaleel,  having  been  commissioned  to  execute  the  work  of  the  sanc- 
tuary (xxxi.  Iff,;  XXXV.  30  to  xxxvi.  1),  makes  the  ark  (xxxvii.  1-9). 
There  is,  of  course,  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Moses  may  have 
been  described  as  making  himself  what  was  in  fact  made,  under  his 
direction,  by  Bezaleel;  but  in  Deuteronomy  Moses  is  instructed  to 
make,  and  actually  does  make,  the  ark  of  acacia  wood  'before  ascend 
ing  the  mount  for  the  second  time  to  receive  the  tables  of  stone; 
whereas  in  Exodus  the  command  to  make  the  ark  is  both  given  to 
Bezaleel  and  executed  by  him  after  Moses'  return  from  the  mountain 
(xxxv.  30  ff.;  xxxvi.  2;   xxxvii.  1). 

We  sliall  be  helped  to  understand  this  matter  by  first  draw- 
ing out  in  detail,  and  with  careful  reference  to  chronology,  the 
account  in  Exodus.  Observe,  then,  that  the  first  command  to 
make  the  ark  was  given  to  Moses  during  his  first  fo^rty  days 
in  the  mount,  and  he  was  told,  "In  the  ark  thou  shalt  put 
the  tes.timony  that  I  shall  give  thee"  (xxiv.  18;  xxv.  10,  21). 
This  was  before  the  first  tables  were  given  to  him.  At  the 
end  of  that  forty  days  he  received  the  tables,  started  down 
the  mountain,  and,  seeing  the  idolatry  in  the  camp,  threw 
them  down  and  broke  them  (xxxi.  18;  xxxii.  15-19).  Then 
comes  his  intercession  for  the  people  in  his  own  tent  which 
he  pitched  outside  the  camp  and  called  the  "tent  of  meeting," 
and  at  the  close  of  it  he  is  commanded  to  hew  two  new  tables 
of  stone,  and  return  into  the  mount,  which  he  does  (xxxiii. 
7-23;  xxxiv.  1-4).  At  the  close  of  the  second  forty  days  he 
receives  the  new  tables  of  stone,  and  brings  them  down  in 
safety  (xxxiv.  28,  29).  Then,  after  calling  upon  the  people 
for  contributions  of  material  and  labor  iov  the  construction 
of  the  tabernacle,  and  receiving  an  abimdance  (xxxv.  1-29), 
he  appoints  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  chief  constructors  (30-35). 
and  commands  the  former  to  make,  among  other  articles,  the 
ark  of  acacia  wood  (xxxvii.  1).  On  the  first  day  of  the  sec- 
ond year  after  leaving  Egypt,  everything  was  completed,  the 
tabernacle  was  erected,  the  tables  were  put  into  the  ark,  and 
the  latter  put  in  its  place  (xl.  17-21).     This  last  act  of  put^ 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  gf 

tino-  the  tables  of  stone  into  the  ark  occurred  about  seven 
months  after  the  last  descent  of  Moses  from  the  mount,  and 
this  descent  occurred  not  less  than  fifty  or  sixty  days  after 
the  first  command  to  make  the  ark.  xipproximately,  nine 
months  passed  between  the  first  command  to  make  the  ark, 
and  the  final  deposit  of  the  tables  within  it:  and  the  account 
of  all  runs  through  sixteen  chapters  of  Exodus,  here  a  little 
and  there  a  little. 

Xow,  the  whole  of  this  story  is  summarized  in  Deuteron- 
omy in  the  space  of  five  verses,  and  it  reads  as  follows:  "At 
that  time  Jehovah  said  to  me.  Hew  thee  two  tables  of  stone 
like  im.tci  the  first,  and  come  up  unto  me  into  the  mount,  and 
make  thee  an  ark  of  wood.  And  I  will  write  on  the  tables 
the  words  tiiat  were  on  the  first  tables  which  thou  brakest,  and 
thou  shalt  put  them  in  the  ark.  So  I  made  an  ark  of  acacia 
wood,  and  hewed  two  tables  of  stone  like  unto  the  first,  and 
went  up  into  the  mount,  having  the  two  tables  in  mine  hand. 
And  he  wrote  on  the  two  tables,  according  to  the  first  wTiting, 
the  ten  commandments,  which  Jehovah  spake  to  you  out  of  the 
midst  of  the  fire  in  the  day  of  the  assembly:  and  Jehovah 
gave  them  to  me.  And  I  turned  and  came  down  from  the 
mount,  and  put  the  tables  in  the  ark  which  I  had  made;  fend 
there  they  be,  as  Jehovah  commanded  me"  (x.  1-5). 

Here  it  is  very  obvious  that  the  order  of  time  in  which 
the  various  steps  were  taken,  and  which  is  so  distinctly  stated 
in  Exodus,  is  not  obsen^ed.  The  differences  are  correctly 
stated  by  Driver.  Moreover,  it  must  be  admitted  that  if  the 
two  accounts  were  written  independently  of  each  other,  and 
by  different  authors,  there  is  a  contradiction  wnth  reference 
to  the  time  at  which  the  ark  was  made.  But  how  is  it,  if, 
instead  of  adopting  this  theory  to  start  with,  we  start  with 
the  representation  which  Deuteronomy  makes  of  itself?  That 
is,  that  ]\Ioses,  having  proceeded,  in  ascending  the  mountain 
and  afterward  in  making  the  ark  as  described  in  Exodus,  and 
having  written  that  book,  he  is  now  addressing  an  oration  to 
the  people  who  knew  from  memory  what  he  had  done,  and 
had  also  read  or  heard  the  account  of  that  doing?       They 


88  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

would,  of  course,  see,  even  more  readily  than  we  do,  that  he 
now  mentions  some  of  the  facts  in  the  reverse  order  without 
meaning  that  they  occurred  in  that  order,  but  because  it  suited 
his  purpose,  and  he  could  do  so  without  misleading  a  single 
one  of  his  hearers.  It  should  be  observed,  too,  that  in  his 
present  statements  of  the  steps  taken  he  uses  no  adverb  of 
time  to  show  that  tliey  were  taken  in  the  order  in  which  he 
mentions  them.  The  passage,  then,  is  perfectly  free  from 
contradictions,  and  was  perfectly  understood  to  be  so  by  those 
who  heard  Moses.  It  is  only  when  the  critic  has  separate<i 
Moses  from  Deuteronomy  that  he  can  use  this  passage  to  just- 
ify the  separation.  In  other  words,  he  cuts  the  cord  which 
binds  the  book  to  its  author,  and  then  j)roves  that  the  author 
did  not  write  the  book  by  the  fact  that  the  co-rd  has  been  cut. 
Again  and  again  is  this  fallacy  j)erpetrated. 

9.  As  to  the  Mission  of  the  Spies.  It  is  persistently  asserted 
by  destructive  critics  that  there  are  sevcTal  contradictions  in 
the  accoimts  of  this  incident.  Robertson  Smith  imdertakes  to 
show  that  the  account  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  chap- 
ters of  I^umbers  is  made  up  of  two  contradictory  stories  blend- 
ed together  so  awkwardly  that  they  can  be  separated.  He  ac- 
cordingly prints  them  in  j>arallel  colunms,  placing  xiii.  21,  25, 
26,  32,  and  xiv.  1,  2,  3,  5,  6,  7,  10,  26-35,  36-38,  on  the  left 
hand,  and  xiii.  20,  22,  26,  27-29,  30,  31-33,  and  xiv.  1,  4,  11- 
25,  39-45,  on  the  right.  But  neither  column  makes  a  com- 
plete story;  and  of  that  on  the  right  he  is  constrained  to  ad- 
mit, "It  has  lost  its  beginning  and  a  few  links  at  other  points" 
(0.  T.J,  "4:00  f.).  This  admission  is  strikingly  true.  The  col- 
umn is  like  a  snake  that  has  lost  its  head  and  a  few  sections 
of  its  body,  and  it  has  the  appearance  of  the  disjected  parts 
of  an  india-rubber  snake  made  to  frighten  children.  Later 
writers,  such  as  Driver  and  Addis,  though  they  follow  Smith 
and  his  predecessors  in  asserting  that  there  are  contradictions, 
are  not  so  incautious  as  to  copy  these  disjointed  fragments. 

The  alleged  contradictions  are  three  in  number:  First,  that 
while  in  Numbers  (xii.  1)  God  issues  the  command  to  send 
the  spies,  in  Deuteronomy  (i.  22,  23)  the  request  to  send  them 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  89 

comes  from  the  people,  and  Moses  consents  to  it,  but  uotliing 
is  said  about  God's  command.  Second,  in  Numbers  (verse 
21)  tlie  spies  go  as  far  north  as  "the  entcTing  in  of  Ilamath," 
while  in  Deuteronomy  (i.  23-25)  they  go  only  as  far  as  He- 
bron. Third,  when  they  re^turn,  one  of  the  stories  in  Num- 
bers represents  Caleb  alone  as  contending  that  Israel  can  take 
the  land,  and  as  being  exempt  from  the  sentence  of  death 
in  the  wilderness,  while  the  other  represents  Joshua  as  taking 
part  with  Caleb. 

To  take  the  last  of  these  allegations  first,  we  remark  that 
only  after  Robertson  Smith  has  split  up  the  narrative  in  Num- 
bers into  two  disjointed  pieces,  and  thrown  what  is  said  of 
Caleb  into  one  and  what  is  said  of  Joshua  into  the  other,  is 
the  slightest  shadow  of  a  contradiction  apparent.  It  is  a  con- 
tradiction of  his  own  creation.  The  text  of  Numbers  as  it 
stands,  while  it  speaks  of  Caleb  alone  at  first  as  remonstrating 
with  the  people  (xiii.  30),  includes  Joshua  with  him  toward 
the  cloise  of  the  accoimt  (xiv.  6),  and  the  same  precisely  is 
true  of  the  account  in  Deuteronomy  (i.  36,  38).  So  plain 
is  this  made  in  both  accounts,  that  readers  of  the  Bible  the 
world  over  have  undei"stood  that  both  of  these  men  gave  a 
true  account  of  the  land,  and  were  both  exempted  from  the 
sentence  which  was  passed  upon  the  rest  of  the  people. 

The  first  and  second  of  these  so-called  contradictions  are 
nothing  more  than  cases  of  omission  in  the  briefer  of  the  t^vo 
accounts.  Nothing  in  the  experience  of  the  people  addressed 
by  Moses  could  have  been  more  familiar  than  this  piece  of 
history;  foT  it  furnished  the  reason  why,  instead  of  entering 
the  promised  land  within  less  than  two  years  after  they  left 
Egypt,  they  had  been  kept  out  of  it  for  more  than  thirty- 
eight  years  longer.  It  explained  the  deplorable  fact  that  all 
the  fathers  and  mothers  of  the  persons  addressed,  to  the  num- 
ber of  more  than  a  million,  had  perished  in  the  wilderness. 
In  referring  to  it,  therefore,  as  a  warning,  Moses  could  with 
perfect  propriety  mention  such  parts  of  the  story  as  suited 
his  hortatory  purpose,  and  omit  all  others,  without  the  slight- 
est appearance  of  ignoring  them,  much  less  of  denying  their 


90  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

existence.  He  accordingly  treats  of  the  whole  subject  in  the 
space  of  twenty-four  verses  (i.  22-46),  whereas  the  original 
account  in  jSTumbers  contains  seventy-eight.  He  abbreviates 
by  omitting  many  well-remembered  incidents.  He  omits  the 
names  of  the  twelve  spies  and  those  of  the  tribes  which  they 
respectively  represented  (4-16) ;  he  omits  the  whole  of  the 
long  list  of  directions  which  he  gave  them  (17-20)  ;  he  omits 
the  season  of  the  year  in  which  they  were  sent  (21)  ;  he  omits 
the  names  of  the  giants  whose  people  were  found  at  Hebron 
(21,  22)  ;  he  omits  the  number  of  days  that  were  occupied  in 
the  journey  (25)  ;  he  omits  the  detailed  account  the  spies  gave 
of  the  location  of  the  different  tribes  in  the  land  (29)  ;  he 
omits  the  thrilling  incidents  of  himself  and  Aaron  falling  on 
their  faces  before  the  people,  of  the  urgent  pleadings  made 
by  Caleb  and  Joshua,  and  the  proposal  of  the  people  to  stone 
these  four  men  (xiv.  5-10)  ;  he  omits  his  own  long  and  earn- 
est pleading  with  God  against  the  latter^s  proposal  to  slay  the 
whole  multitude  and  raise  up  a  people  from  Moses  to  inherit 
the  land  (11-21)  ;  he  omits  the  greater  part  of  the  final  sen- 
tence upon  the  rebels  (28-35)  ;  and  he  omits  the  fact  that  the 
ten  false  spies  died  of  a  plague  (36,  37).  In  the  midst  of 
such  a  multitude  of  omissions,  why  should  it  be  thought  strange 
that  he  omitted  to  state  the  whole  distance  that  the  spies  jour- 
neyed, and  the  fact  that  God  directed  him  to  send  them  ?  To 
look  the  facta  in  the  face  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  see  the 
impertinence  and  absurdity  of  the  charge  of  contradiction. 
Driver  himself,  in  the  very  act  of  presenting  the  first  of  these 
three  charges,  furnisiies  a  satisfactory  answer  to  it.     He  says : 

Here  (Deut.  i.  22,  23)  the  mission  of  the  spies  is  represented  as 
due  entirely  to  a  suggestion  made  by  the  people;  in  Num.  xiii.  1-3 
it  is  referred  to  as  a  command  received  directly  by  Moses  from 
Jehovah.  No  doubt  the  two  representations  are  capable,  in  the 
abstract,  of  being  harmonized:  Moses,  it  might  be  supposed,  approv- 
ing personally  of  the  purpose  (Deut.  i.  23),  desired  to  know  if  it  had 
Jehovah's  sanction;  and  the  command  in  Numbers  (xiii.  1-3)  is  really 
the  answer  to  his  inquiry. 

What  could  be  more  reasonable  than  this,  especially  as 
Moses  was  not  in  the  habit  of  adopting  measures  that  might 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  91 

involve  tlio  lives  of  a  dozen  eminent  men  without  God's  ap- 
proval ?  Seeing,  then,  that  this  obvious  explanation  is  right 
at  hand,  so  close  that,  had  it  been  a  serpent,  it  would  have 
bitten  Robertson  Smith  and  his  imitators,  why  did  these  inge- 
nious men  make  out  of  it  a  contradiction  ?  Why,  unless  they 
were  on  the  search  for  contradictions  when  they  should  have 
been  searching  for  the  truth  ?  They  were  fighting,  not  to  de- 
fend the  Bible,  but  to  bring  it  into  disrepute.  So  w^e  are  com- 
pelled to  judge  them  in  much  of  their  work. 

10.  As  to  the  Time  Spent  at  Kadesh.  It  is  universally  as- 
sumed by  destructive  critics  that  the  stay  of  Israel  at  Kadesh- 
Barnea  is  represented  in  IsTumbers  as  lasting  thirty-eight  years ; 
while  in  Deuteronomy,  contrary  to  this,  they  spent  the  thirty- 
eight  years  circling  Mount  Seir.  Driver,  in  his  Commentary 
(31-33),  treats  the  subject  elaborately;  but  the  discrepancy 
as  he  understands  it  is  sufficiently  presented  in  the  following 
sentence : 

If  the  present  narrative  in  Numbers  be  complete,  the  thirty- 
eight  years  in  the  wilderness  will  have  been  spent  at  Kadesh:  noth- 
ing is  said  of  the  Israelites  moving  elsewhere;  and  the  circuit  round 
Edom  (Num.  xxi.  4)  will  have  taken  place  at  the  close  of  this  period, 
merely  in  order  to  enable  the  Israelites  to  reach  the  east  side  of 
Jordan.  In  this  case  the  representation  in  Deut.  ii.  1,  14,  according 
to  which  the  thirty-eight  years  of  the  wanderings  are  occupied  entirely 
with  circling  about  Mount  Seir,  will  be  irreconcilable  with  JE  (that 
is,  with  Numbers).^" 

The  only  way  to  determine  the  reality  of  this  alleged  con- 
tradiction is  to  trace  carefully  the  representations  in  the  two 
books  separately,  and  then  compare  them  to  see  their  differ- 
ences, if  any  appear.  We  begin  with  that  in  Numbers.  In 
xiv.  25,  after  the  sentence  has  been  pronounced  on  the  men 
of  that  generation,  God  issues  the  command,  "To-morrow  turn 
ye,  and  get  you  into  the  wilderness  by  the  way  to  the  Red 
Sea."  Driver  says  of  this,  ''Whether  they  did  this,  is  not 
stated ;"  and  it  is  true  that  it  is  not  stated ;  but  the  command 

'"In  this  he  follows  Wellhausen,  who  says:  "After  turning  aside 
to  Sinai  as  related  in  Exodus,  the  emigrants  settled  at  Kadesh  east- 
ward from  Goshen,  on  the  southern  borders  of  Palestine,  where  they 
remained  for  many  years"  (Art.  "Israel,"  Encyc.  Brit.,  p.  407,  col.  1). 


92  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

"was  given,  and  Moses,  who  was  the  leader  and  commander 
of  the  host,  always  moved  at  God's  command;  and  the  pillar 
of  cloud,  which  guided  every  movement,  undoubtedly  did  the 
same.  It  is  not  necessary,  then,  that  the  text  should  say  they 
did  mova  On  the  contrary,  it  would  require  a  statement  of 
the  text  that  they  did  not  move,  to  justify  us  in  supposing 
that  they  did  not.  But  this  inference,  plain  as  it  is,  is  not 
our  only  ground  for'  concluding  that  they  obeyed  the  com- 
mand. In  later  verses  of  the  same  chapter  (32,  33)  God  says 
to  the  people:  "Your  carcasses  shall  fall  in  the  wilderness. 
And  your  children  shall  be  wanderers  in  the  wilderness  forty 
years,  and  shall  bear  your  whoredoms,  until  your  carcasses  be 
consumed  in  the  wilderness."  How  could  they  be  "wander- 
ers in  the  wilderness  forty  years"  if  they  remained  thirty- 
eight  years  at  Kadesh  ?  It  is  necetssarily  implied  that  they 
were  to  leave  Kadesh  and  wander  about. 

The  narrative  next  proceeds  through  chapters  xv.-xix.  of 
l^Tumbers,  with  a  group  of  new  statutes  (xv.  1-41)  ;  the  ac- 
count of  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram  (xvi. 
40)  ;  the  punishment  of  those  who  murmured  over  the  fate 
of  these  men  and  their  fellow  conspirators  (41-50)  ;  the  con- 
firmation of  Aaron's  priesthood  (xvii.  1-13) ;  some  new  stat- 
utes in  reference  to  the  priesthood  and  the  Levitts  (xviii.  1- 
32)  ;  and  the  statute  in  reference  to  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer 
(xix.  1-22).  Then  comes  the  statement:  "And  the  children 
of  Israel,  even  the  whole  congregation,  came  into  the  wilder- 
ness of  Zin  in  the  first  month;  and  the  j^eople  abode  in  Ka- 
desh; and  Miriam  died  there,  and  was  buried  there"  (xxi.  1). 
How  could  it  be  here  said  that  after  these  intervening  events 
"they  came  into  the  wilderness  of  Zin  in  the  first  month,  and 
abode  in  Kadesh,"  if  they  had  been  in  Kadesh  during  the 
whole  intervening  time?  Undoubtedly  this  is  a  return  to 
Kadesh ;  and  the  assertion  that  they  "abode  in  Kadesh,"  gross- 
ly misinterpreted  as  referring  to  the  whole  thirty-eight  years, 
clearly  refers  to  the  stay  there  after  this  return.  The  first 
month  here  mentioned,  as  all  parties  agree,  is  the  first  month 
of  the  fortieth  year.     We  need  not  go  outside  the  Book  of 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  93 

Numbers,  then,  the  very  book  which  is  charged  with  teaching 
that  Israel  abode  at  Kadesh  thirty-eight  years,  to  see  that  by 
necessary  implications  it  shows  that  they  left  Kadesh  after 
the  affair  of  the  spies,  wandered  in  the  wilderness  until  all 
but  the  last  of  the  forty  years  had  expired,  and  then  re 
turned  again  to  Kadesh. 

This  conclusion,  drawn  from  the  course  of  the  events,  is 
sustained  by  the  evidence  of  the  itinerary  of  the  wilderness 
wanderings,  also  recorded  in  !N^umbers.  In  this  itinerary 
(Num.  xxxiii.)  Kadesh  is  mentioned  only  onoe,  it  being  the 
intention  of  the  writer  to  name  the  forty-two  places  of  for- 
mal encampment,  without  regard  to  the  number  of  times  that 
Israel  may  have  encamped  at  any  one  place.  When  Kadesh 
is  mentioned,  it  is,  as  we  have  seen,  in  connection  with  the 
arrival  there  in  the  first  month  of  the  fortieth  year.  But 
they  reached  that  place,  and  sent  forth  the  twelve  spies  at 
the  time  of  the  first  ripe  grapes  in  the  second  year  out  of 
Egypt  (xiii.  20),  Hazeroth  is  the  last  camping-place  men- 
tioned in  the  account  of  the  journey  before  reaching  Kadesh 
(xii.  16,  cf.  xiii.  26)  ;  but  in  the  itinerary  there  are  between 
Hazeroth  and  Kadesh  nineteen  encampments.  This  could  not 
have  beeoi  true  of  the  first  arrival  in  Kadesh ;  consequently  we 
must  conclude  that  these  nineteen  encampments  were  made 
between  the  first  and  the  second  arrival  in  that  place,  or  dur- 
ing the  wanderings  of  thirty-eight  years,  of  which  we'  know 
but  little.  Thus  it  appears,  from  every  point  of  view  fur- 
nished by  the  Book  of  Numbers,  that  this  interval  of  thirty- 
eight  years  was  not  spent  at  Kadesh,  but  at  encampments  lying 
in  between  the  first  and  the  second  visit  to  that  place. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Deuteronomy,  and  see  if  there  is  any- 
thing there  to  contradict  this  conclusion.  Here,  in  ii.  14,  Mo- 
ses says  to  the  people:  "And  the  days  in  which  we  came  from 
Kadesh-Bamea,  until  we  came  over  the  brook  Zeresh,  were 
thirty  and  eight  years;  until  all  the  generation  of  the  men 
of  war  were  consumed  from  the  midst  of  the  camp,  as  Jehovah 
sware  unto  them."  The  terms  here  employed  show  that  he 
is  counting  from  the  time  that  Jehovah  sware  this;  that  is, 


94  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

from  the  first  visit  to  Kadesh.  This  is  made  equally  clear  by 
the  fact  that  the  places  of  encampment  since  the  last  visit  to 
that  place  are  named  in  Num.  xxxiii.  38-44,  and  they  are 
only  five  in  nmuber.  The  first  of  them,  Mount  Hoa*,  was 
reached  in  the  fifth  month  of  the  last  year  of  the  wanderings 
(xxxiii.  38),  and  the  others  were  passed  a  little  later  in  the 
same  year.  The  "many  days"  that  they  spent  in  compassing 
Mount  Seir  (the  land  of  Edom),  which  Driver  understands 
as  including  the  thirty-eight  years,  were  spent  after  leaving 
Kadesh  the  last  time ;  for  Moses  says :  "So  ye  abode  in  Kadesh 
many  days,  according  to  the  days  that  ye  abode  there.  Then 
we  turned,  and  took  our  joiunier)'  into  the  wilderness  by  the 
way  to  the  Red  Sea,  as  Jehovah  spake  to  me:  and  we  coon- 
passed  mount  Seir  many  days"  (Deut.  i.  46-ii,  1).  The  cir- 
cuit occuj)ied  many  days  compared  with  the  small  space  aroimd 
which  they  had  to  pass.  The  many  days  which  they  spent 
at  Kadesh  included,  the  forty  spent  by  the  spies  in  their  march 
through  Canaan,  together  with  some  days  previous,  and  some 
days  after  this  march,  and,  during  the  last  visit,  the  days  of 
mourning  for  Miriam,  probably  thirty,  and  much  the  greater 
part  of  the  time  from  the  first  month  to  the  fifth,  in  which 
they  reached  Mount  Hor  (jSTum.  xx.  1,  22). 

This  instance  of  alleged  contradiction  illustrates  the  ease 
with  which  an  allegation  of  the  kind  can  be  made  after  a 
careless  examination  of  the  text  in  search  of  contradictions, 
and  the  success  with  which  the  charge  can  be  refuted  when 
the  same  text  is  examined  with  proper  care. 

11.  As  to  the  Time  of  Co'nsecrating  the  Levites.  The 
time  of  this  event  is  stated  in  a  general  way  in  this  passage: 
"And  I  turned  and  came  down  from  the  mount,  and  put 
the  tables  in  the  ark  which  I  had  made;  and  there  they  be, 
as  Jehovah  commanded  me.  (And  the  children  of  Israel  jour- 
neyed from  Beeroth  Bene-jaakan  to  Moserah:  there  Aaron 
died,  and  there  he  was  buried ;  and  Eleazar  his  son  minis- 
tered in  the  priest's  office  in  his  stead.  From  thence  they 
journeyed  to  Judgodah;  and  from  Judgodah  to  Jotbathah,  a 
land  of  brooks  of  watpr.     At  that  time  Jehovah  separated  the 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  95 

tribe  of  Levi,  to  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah, 
to  stand  before  Jehovah  to  minister  to  him,  to  bless  in  his 
name,  unto  this  day)"  (x.  5-8). 

If  one  should  read  this  passage  -without  observing  the  fact 
that  a  parenthesis  begins  mth  the  words,  "And  the  chil 
dren  of  Israel  joiirnejed,"  and  that  there  is  a  total  discon- 
nection between  this  and  the  next  preceding  thought,  he  might 
suppose  that  Moses  here  fixes  the  consecration  of  the  Levites 
at  a  time  subsequent  to  the  death  of  Aarou,  and  of  certain 
journeys  that  followed  his  death.  But  the  parenthetical  na- 
ture of  the  intervening  clauses,  together  with  the  change  of 
address  from  the  second  person  (verse  4)  to  the  third  ("the 
children  of  Israel  journeyed"),  show  plainly  that  we  have 
here  an  interpolation  by  another  than  the  original  speaker. 
The  reference  in  the  ^vords,  "At  that  time  Jehovah  separated 
the  tribe  of  Levi,"  is  unquestionably  to  the  time  when  he  came 
down  from  the  mount  and  put  the  tables  in  the  ark,  mentioned 
before  the  parenthesis;  and  this  agrees  with  the  account  in 
Exodus.     On  this  passage  Driver  makes  these  remarks : 

If  X.  6,  7  be  an  integral  part  of  Deuteronomy,  "at  that  time"  can 
in  that  case  only  refer  to  the  period  indicated  in  those  verses,  and 
verses  8  and  9  will  assign  the  consecration  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  to 
a  much  later  date  than  is  done  in  Ex.  xxviii.  29;  Lev.  viii.;  Num.  iii 
5-10.  If,  however,  verses  6  and  7  be  not  original  in  Deuteronomy, 
"at  that  time"  will  refer  to  the  period  of  sojourn  at  Horeb  (i.  5); 
in  this  case  there  ceases  to  be  a  contradiction  with  Exodus. 

He  might  as  well  have  saved  himself  the  trouble  of  wri- 
ting this,  for  he  answers  his  own  objection  in  the  very  act 
of  presenting  it.     This  "if"  introduces  the  reality  in  the  case. 

12.  As  to  the  Sentence  on  Moses  and  Aaron.  In  connec- 
tion with  his  recital  of  the  sentence  pronounced  on  the  people 
of  Israel  after  the  report  of  the  spies,  Moses  says :  "Also  Jeho- 
vah was  angry  with  me  for  your  sakes,  saying,  Thou  shalt 
not  go  in  thither.  Joshua  the  son  of  IsTun,  who  standeth  before 
thee,  he  shall  go  in  thither :  encourage  thou  him ;  for  he  shali 
cause  Israel  to  inherit  it"  (Deut.  i.  37,  38).  On  these  verses 
Driver  makes  the  comment: 

Neither  the  position  of  these  two  verses,  nor  their  contents,  can 
be  properly  explained  unless  they  are  held  to  refer  to  some  incident 


96  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

which  took  place  immediately  after  the  return  of  the  spies.  If  that 
be  the  case,  they  will  present  another  (cf.  verse  36)  of  the  many 
examples  which  the  Pentateuch  contains  of  a  double  tradition:  accord- 
ing to  Deuteronomy,  Moses  was  forbidden  to  enter  Canaan  in  conse- 
quence of  the  people's  disobedience  at  Kadesh  in  the  second  year  of 
the  Exodus:  according  to  P  (Num.  xx.  12;  xxvii.  13  f.;  Deut.  xxxii. 
50  f.),  it  was  on  account  of  his  presumption  at  the  same  spot,  but 
on  a  different  occasion,  thirty-seven  years  afterward   {Com.,  26,  27). 

There  would  be  plausibility  in  this  representation  if  noth- 
ing more  were  said  on  the  subject  in  Deuteronomy,  and  if  both 
accounts  were  derived,  as  Driver  assumes,  from  oral  tradition, 
one  running  for  seven  hundred  years,  and  the  other  for  one 
thousand.  In  that  case  neither  would  be  worth  the  paj>er  on 
which  it  is  printed.  But  in  the  last  passage  which  he  himself 
cites  parenthetically  (Deut.  xxxii.  50  f.),  the  same  account  of 
God's  anger  against  Moses  is  given  as  in  Numbers.  There  it 
is  declared  that  God  said  to  Moses,  "Get  thee  up  into  this 
mountain  of  Abarim,  unto  mount  I^ebo  .  .  .  and  die  in  the 
moimt  whither  thou  goest  up,  and  be  gathered  to  thy  people; 
as  Aaron  thy  brother  died  at  mount  Hor,  and  was  gathered 
unto  his  people;  because  ye  transgressed  against  me  in  the 
midst  of  the  children  of  Israel  at  the  waters  of  Meribah 
of  Kadesh,  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin;  because  ye  sanc- 
tified me  not  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel."  This 
is  the  testimony  of  Deuteronomy  when,  instead  of  a  mere 
allusion,  as  in  i.  36,  37,  a  full  account  is  given.  There  is, 
then,  not  a  shadow  of  inconsistency  between  the  two  books. 
But  the  destructive  critics  refuse  to  let  the  matter  rest  thus. 
In  order  to  still  make  out  a  contradiction,  which  is  impossible 
with  the  text  as  it  is,  they  resort  to  the  device  of  robbing  the 
Deuteronomist  of  this  latter  passage,  and  assign  it  to  P,  the 
hypothetical  author  of  the  account  in  IsTumbers.  This  is  their 
constant  device  when  the  text  as  it  is  can  not  be  harmonized 
with  the  theory  to  be  sustained. 

We  must  here  insist  again,  as  in  all  of  these  alleged  contra- 
dictions, that  the  only  way  to  ascertain  whether  they  are  real, 
is  to  try  them  on  the  ground  on  which  they  claim  to  stand. 
This  portion  of  Deuteronomy  claims  to  be  a  speech  delivered 
by  Moses  to  the  Israelites  near  the  close  of  their  wanderings, 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  97 

when  the  last  of  tJie  scenes  at  Kadesh  was  less  than  a  year  in 
the  past,  and  the  earliest  of  them  a  little  over  thirty-seven  years, 
while  both  were  as  distinctly  remembered  by  every  middle- 
aged  man  and  woman  in  the  audience  as  was  the  battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  by  the  American  people  forty  years  after  it  was 
fought.  To  such  an  audience  many  allusions  to  those  events 
which  might  be  puzzling  to  one  who  was  not  familiar  with 
details,  would  be  perfectly  intelligible.  If,  then,  as  Deuteron- 
omy represents,  and  as  J^umbers  represents,  the  anger  of  God 
against  Moses  and  Aaron  was  because  of  the  sin  at  Meribah, 
when  he  mentioned  it  in  connection  with  the  sin  of  the  people 
after  the  report  of  the  spies,  they  could  not  have  thought  that 
he  meant  to  connect  it  in  point  of  time  with  the  latter  event. 
They  would  know  that  he  mentioned  it  in  that  connection 
because  of  the  similarity  of  his  fate  with  theirs — a  most  nat- 
ural connection  of  thought.  And  when  he  said,  "God  was 
angry  with  me  on  your  account,"  they  could  not  think  that  he 
meant  on  account  of  their  rebellion  when  the  spies  reported, 
because  they  well  knew  that  Moses  had  done  his  very  best  to 
dissuade  them  from  that  sin,  even  risking  his  own  life  at  their 
hands  in  the  effort.  They  would  remember  that  it  was  their 
murmuring  for  want  of  water  which  caused  Moses  to  act  as  he 
did,  and  that  thusi  indirectly  God  was  angry  with  him  on  their 
account.  How  smoothly  the  stream  of  narration  flows  when 
it  is  thus  permitted  to  follow  its  own  channel;  and  how  dis- 
cordant when  divided  and  led  into  ditches  dug  by  its  enemies. 
13.  As  to  the  Asylum  for  the  Manslayer.      Driver  says: 

In  Ex.  xxi.  13  the  asylum  for  manslaughter  (as  the  connection 
with  verse  14  seems  to  show)  is  Jehovah's  altar  (cf.  I.  Kings  i.  50; 
ii.  28);  in  Deuteronomy  (c.  19)  definite  cities  are  set, apart  for  the 
purpose  {Com.,  37). 

To  the  same  effect  Kobertson  Smith  says: 

The  asylum  for  the  manslayer  in  Ex.  xxi.  12-14  is  Jehovah's  altar, 
and  so,  in  fact,  the  altar  was  used  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon. 
But  under  the  law  of  Deuteronomy,  there  are  to  be  three  fixed  cities 
of  refuge — Deut.  xix.  1,  seq.   (0.  T.,  354). 

The  issue  here  turns  on  the  correctness  of  the  first  assertion 
in  these  two  statements.      Is  it  true  that  the  law  in  Exodus 


98  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

made  the  altar  of  Jehovah  a  sanctuary  for  the  manslayer  ?  It 
reads  thus:  "He  that  smiteth  a  man  so  that  he  die,  he  shall 
surely  be  put  to  death.  And  if  a  man  lie  not  in  wait,  but 
God  deliver  him  into  his  hand;  then  I  will  appoint  thee  a 
2)laee  whither  he  shall  flee.  And  if  a  man  come  presumptu- 
ously upon  his  neighbor,  to  slay  him  with  guile ;  thou  shalt 
take  him  from  mine  altar,  that  he  may  die." 

This  law,  instead  of  making  the  altar  an  asylum  for  the 
manslayer,  positively  foa'bids  its  use  as  such.  It  is  to  furnish 
no  protection,  not  even  temporary  protectiom,  from  death.  On 
the  contrary,  this  statute  contains  the  promise,  "I  will  appoint 
thee  a  place  whither  he  shall  flee."  This  promise  was  fulfilled 
in  the  appointment  of  the  cities  of  refuge,  and  it  was  provided 
that  every  man  who  killed  his  neighbor  might  find  asylum 
there  until  the  time  of  his  trial,  and  might  remain  there  after 
his  trial  if  he  was  found  not  worthy  of  death  (Deut.  xix. 
1-13).  The  cases  referred  to  by  both  of  these  writers  as 
occurring  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon  are  those  of 
Adonijah  and  Joab.  But  both  of  these,  though  they  fled  to 
the  altar  in  the  hope  of  being  spared,  were  slain ;  and  Jo-ab 
was  slain  by  the  command  of  Solomon  while  clinging  to  the 
ho.ms  of  the  altar  (I.  Kings  i.  50,  51 ;  ii.  24,  25,  29-34).  This 
is  a  unique  way  of  proving  that  the  altar  was  an  asylimi  foT 
the  manslayer — instances  in  which  it  furnished  no  protection 
whatever.  If  it  should  be  asked  why  Joab  fled  to  the  altar, 
if  it  was  not  an  asylum,  the  answer  must  be,  not  that  it  was  an 
asylum — for  Solomon  did  not  recognize  it  as  such — but  because 
he  thought  ithat  possiMy  he  might  not  be  slain  there,  lest 
human  blood  might  defile  the  altar. 

In  this  Ristance  a  provision  of  the  law  has  been  misrepre- 
sented and  its  meaning  reversed,  in  order  to  make  out  a  con- 
tradiction with  another  arrangement  which  it  actually  provided 
for  in  promise.  Scarcely  anything  could  be  more  reprehen- 
sible. 

But  there  is  still  another  phase  to  this  reprehensible  use 
of  Scripture.  If  God  made  a  law  by  the  hand  of  Moses,  as 
these  men  would  have  us  believe,  that  his  altar  should  be  an 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  9J) 

asyliuii  for  the  willful  iiiiirderer ;  and  if  this  law  was  recog- 
nized as  his  hy  such  rulers  as  David  and  Solomon,  Tiow  can  it 
be  accounted  for  that  an  unknown  author  in  the  days  of  Josiah 
deliberately  legislated  to  the  reverse  of  this  law,  and  that  the 
people  of  Judah  accepted  the  innovation  wdthout  a  word  I 
Again:  If,  down  to  the  time  of  this  new  legislation,  the  altar 
of  Jehovah  had  been  the  asylum  for  the  manslayer,  how  is  it 
that  this  new  and  unknown  legislator  made  the  people  believe 
that  in  all  their  past  history  back  to  Moses  there  had  been 
cities  of  refuge  into  which  the  murderer  could  flee  for  teaiipo- 
rary  asylum  ?  Were  the  Israelites  of  Josiah's  day,  including 
Josiah  himselfj  a  set  of  idiots,  or  have  the  critics  who'  argue 
as  Driver  and  Robertson  Smith  do,  lost  their  heads  ? 
14.  As  to  the  Year  of  Release: 

It  is  not  claimed  that  there  is  a  positive  contradiction  between 
Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  on  this  subject,  but  doubt  is  thrown  on 
the  origin  of  the  latter  by  the  remark  that  "had  both  laws  been 
framed  by  Moses,  it  is  difficult  not  to  think  that  in  formulating 
Deut.  XV.  1-6  he  would  have  made  some  allusion  to  the  law  of  Ex 
xxiil.  10  f.,  and  mentioned  that,  in  addition  to  the  provisions  there 
laid  down,  the  sabbatical  year  was  to  receive  this  new  application" 
{Com.,  38,  cf.  174  ff.). 

We  can  best  judge  of  this  by  copying  the  two  laws,  and 
seeing  them  together.  The  law  in  Exodus  is  this:  "And  six 
years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land,  and  shalt  gather  in  the  increase 
thereof;  but  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie 
fallow ;  that  the  poor  of  thy  people  may  eat :  and  what  they 
leave,  the  beasts  of  the  field  may  eat.  In  like  manner  shalt 
thou  deal  with  thy  vineyard  and  thy  oliveyard." 

The  law  in  Deuteronomy  reads  thus :  "At  the  end  of  every 
seven  years  thou  shalt  make  a  release.  And  this  is  the  manner 
of  the  release:  every  creditor  shall  release  that  which  he  hath 
lent  unto  his  neighbors;  he  shall  not  exact  it  of  his  neighbor 
and  his  brother ;  because  Jehovah's  release  hath  been  pro- 
claimed. Of  a  foreigner  thou  mayest  exact  it;  but  whatso- 
e^^er  of  thine  is  with  thy  brother  thine  hand  shall  release." 

It  is  true,  as  Driver  observes,  that  in  formulating  this 
latter  law  there  is  no  allusipn  made  to  the  former;  but  why 
should  there  be  ?      The  two'  provisions  are  perfectly  indepen- 


i 


loo  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

dent  of  each  other,  so  that  neither  would  necessarily  sugg'e«t 
the  other.  And  if,  as  Driver  affirms,  it  is  difficult  not  to  think 
that  Moses,  in  formulating  the  latter,  would  have  made  some 
allusion  to  the  former,  why  is  it  not  equally  difficult,  and  even 
more  so,  if  some  other  man,  seven  hundred  years  later  than 
Moses,  had  been  the  writer?  If  the  former  consideration 
argues  that  Moses  was  not  the  author,  it  argues  with  greater 
force  that  a  man  in  the  days  of  Josiah  was  not  the  author,  and 
it  is  equally  good  to  prove  that  nohody  at  all  was  the  autho'r.^^ 

Finally,  if  Moses  did  not  give  this  law  of  release  from 
debt,  but  did  give  the  law  of  rest  for  the  land,  and  if  the  latter 
law  had  been  the  recognized  law  of  the  seventh  year  ever  since 
the  time  of  ]\IoseS;  how  could  any  man,  in  the  seventh  century 
after  Moses,  dare  to  \yr\\.&  that  Moses  also  gave  the  law  of 
release  from  deht — a  law  of  which  no  human  being  had  heard 
until  that  day  1  Who  could  believe  him  ?  And  who  could 
be  expected  to  obey  this  pretended  law  by  releasing  his  cred- 
itors from  paying  just  debts?  The  enactment  would  be  too 
absurd  for  any  but  a  lunatic. 

15.  As  to  Eating  Firstlings.     One  of  the  most  plausible 

in  the  whole  list  of  the  alleged  contir'adictions  has  reference 

to  the  eating  of  the  firstlings  of  the  flocks  and  herds,  and  of 

the  tithes.     The  chargei  is  compactly  stated  by  Driver  in  these 

words: 

In  Deut.  xii.  6,  17,  the  firstlings  of  oxen  and  sheep  are  to  be  eaten 
hy  the  owner  himself  at  a  sacred  feast  to  be  held  at  the  central  sanc- 
tuary. In  Num.  xviii.  18,  they  are  assigned  absolutely  and  expressly 
to   the  'priest    {Com.,   xxxix.). 


"  In  regard  to  the  year  of  rest  for  the  land,  Kuenen  says:  "The 
Pentateuch  itself  testifies  that  this  precept  was  not  observed  before 
the  exile"  {Rel.  of  Israel,  II.  36).  He  cites,  in  proof  of  the  assertion, 
Lev.  xxvi.  34,  35,  43;  and  compares  II.  Chron.  xxxvi.  21.  But  the 
passage  in  Leviticus  is  a  prediction  that  God  will  scatter  Israel  among 
the  nations  on  account  of  their  iniquities,  and  that  then  the  land 
should  enjoy  its  sabbaths  which  it  had  not  enjoyed  while  they  dwelt 
in  it;  and  the  one  in  II.  Chronicles  that  the  years  of  exile  were  fixed 
at  seventy  by  Jeremiah,  "Until  the  land  had  enjoyed  her  sabbaths; 
for  as  long  as  she  lay  desolate  she  kept  sabbath,  to  fulfil  threescore 
and  ten  years."  Now,  the  number  of  sabbatical  years  which  had 
passed  since  the  occupation  of  Canaan  was  about  120;  from  which  it 
seems  that  fifty  of  the  sabbatical  years  had  been  observed. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY,  101 

In  this  case  neither  of  the  provisions  is  accredited  by  our 
critics  to  Moses.  The  one  in  Numbers  is  ascribed  to  P,  who 
wrote,  according  to  the  theory,  about  two  hundred  years  after 
Deuteronomy  was  published.  But  Deuteronomy,  from  the 
time  of  its  publication,  was  acknowledged  by  the  Jews  as  God's 
law  given  by  Moses.  If,  then,  during  these  two  hundred 
years,  it  had  been  the  practice  in  Israel,  according  to  the 
exj)ress  letter  of  God's  supposed  law,  for  every  man  to  eat  his 
own  firstling  oxen  and  sheej),  how  did  P  dare  to  publish  a 
new  law  requiring  the  owner  to  give  up  his  God-given  right 
in  this  particular,  and  turn  over  his  firstlings  to  the  priest  ? 
Moreover,  P  wrote,  not  in  his  own  name,  but  in  the  name  of 
Moses,  claiming,  equally  with  the  author  of  DeuteTonomy,  that 
his  laws  were  given  by  Moses ;  how,  then,  could  he  dare  to-  thus 
represent  Moses  as  contradicting  himself,  and  how  could  hs 
hope  that  anybody  would  receive  his  new  law  ?  How,  indeed, 
can  the  critic  account  for  the  fact  that  Israel  did  receive  both 
of  these  contradictory  laws  as  having  been  given  by  Jehovah 
through  Moses  ?  No  answer  has  been  given  to  these  questions ; 
and  none  can  be  given  that  will  relieve  the  theory  of  prac- 
tical absurdity. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  law  in  Numbers  was  written  by 
Moses,  and  not  by  the  hypothetical  P,  and  if  it  had  been  the 
law,  from  the  days  of  Moses  to  the  days  of  Josiah,  that  the 
priest  should  have  the  flesh  of  the  firstlings,  how  could  the 
writer  of  Deuteronomy  dare  to  say  that  it  had  also  been  the 
law,  ever  since  Moses  lived,  that  the  firstlings  were  to  be  eaten 
by  the  owner  and  his  family?  He  would  have  betrayed  him- 
self and  his  book  of  law  as  a  fraud,  had  he  done  so'.  These 
considerations  necessarily  raise  a  doubt  whether  the  alleged 
contradiction  really  exists;  and  they  force  us  to  be  very  slow 
in  admitting  that  it  does.  Thej^  suggest  that  possibly  the 
exegesis  which  supports  the  charge  of  contradiction  may 
be  erroneous. 

To  test  this  suggestion,  let  us  now  examine  the  several  pas- 
sages with  care.  The  one  in  Numbers  is  unambigTious,  and 
it  does,  as  Driver  affirms,    give    the    firstlings    to    the    priest. 


102  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Addressing  Aaron,  Jehovali  says:  ''But  the  firstling  of  an  ox, 
or  the  firstling  of  a  sheep,  or  the  firstling  of  a  goat,  thou  shalt 
not  redeem ;  they  are  holy :  thou  shalt  sprinkle  their  blood 
upon  the  altar,  and  shalt  bum  their  fat  for  an  offering  made 
by  fire,  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  Jehovah.  And  the  fleish  of 
them  shall  be  thine,  as  the  wave  breast  and  the  right  thigh; 
it  shall  be  thine"  (xviii.  17,  18). 

The  first  of  the  three  passages  in  Deuteronomy  reads 
thus :  "And  thither  shall  ye  bring  your  burnt  offerings, 
and  your  tithes,  and  the  heave-offeirings  of  your  hand,  and 
your  vows,  and  your  freewill  offerings,  and  the  firstlings 
of  your  herd  and  your  flock,  and  there  shall  ye  eat  before 
Jehovah  your  God,  and  ye  shall  rejoice  in  all  that  ye  put  your 
hand  unto,  ye  and  yonr  households,  wherein  Jehovah  thy  God 
hath  blessed  thee"  (xii.  6,  7).  Here  they  are  told  to  eat,  but 
they  are  not  told  which  they  shall  eat  of  the  various  offerings 
mentioned.  We  know,  however,  from  other  legislation,  that 
they  were  not  to  eat  of  the  burnt  offerings,  which  were  totally 
consumed  on  the  altar.  They  were  not  tO'  eat  of  the  heave- 
offering,  which  was  to  be  consumed  by  the  priest  and  his 
family ;  and,  if  the  law  in  ISTumbers  had  been  already  given, 
they  were  not  to  eat  of  the  firstlings.  But  other  legislation 
gave  them  the  right  to  eat  of  the  tithes,  of  the  freewill  offer- 
ings, and  of  the  offerings  in  fulfillment  of  vows.  When,  then, 
they  were  told  to  bring  all  these  offerings  to  the  place  that 
God  would  choose,  and  to  eat  there,  they  were  necessarily 
restricted  in  their  eating  to  these  three  classes  of  offerings,  the 
others  having  been  forbidden.  There  is  no  authority  here  for 
eating  of  the  firstlings. 

The  second  passage  is  the  seventeenth  verse  of  the  same 
chapter.  Having  directed  the  people  in  the  sixth  verse  to  take 
all  their  offerings,  of  every  kind,  to  the  place  which  God  would 
appoint,  he  here  repeats,  in  reference  to  some  of  them,  the 
same  instruction  in  a  negative  form.  He  says :  "Thou  mayest 
not  eat  within  thy  gates  the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  or  of  thy  vine, 
or  of  thine  oil,  or  the  firstlings  of  thy  herd  or  thy  flock,  nor 
any  of  the  vows  which  thou  vo^\^Tlst,  nor  thy  freewill  offerings^ 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  103 

nor  tlio  heave-offering  of  tJij  hand:  but  thou  shalt  eat  thoui 
befoi'e  Jehovah  thy  God  in  the  place  which  Jeliovah  thy  God 
shall  choose,"  etc.  These  are  the  offerings  which  tJiey  would 
be  most  tempted  to  partake  of  at  their  homes;  and  this 
accounts  for  the  repetition.  It  seems  from  this  that,  while 
not  commanded  to  eat  of  the  firstlings,  they  were  permitted  to 
do  so.  The  case,  then,  is  like  that  of  the  tithes,  which  though 
given  to  the  Levites,  the  giver  was  permitted  to  have  one  feast 
froaii  them  with  the  Levites,  at  the  time  of  delivering  them  to 
the  latter.  This  provision  is  not  contradictory  to  the  one  that 
gave  the  firstlings  to  the  priests,  but  an  addition  to  it  by  which 
the  offerer  was  permitted  to  have  one  feast  with  tbe  priests 
who  received  them.  In  this  case  also,  as  in  that  of  the  tithes, 
the  firstlings  would  furnish  a  much  greater  quantity  of  flesh, 
than  the  man  and  his  family  could  consume  if  they  alone  ate 
of  it.  If  the  offerer,  for  instance,  had  one  hundred  sheep  and 
twenty  cows,  he  would  be  likely  to  have  born  every  year 
tw^enty  or  more  male  lambs  that  would  be  the  firatboi'n 
of  their  mothers,  and  a  half-dozen  calves  that  %vere  the 
firstborn  of  his  heifers.  If  his  flocks  and  henis  were  numer- 
ous, he  would  be  certain  to  have  many  more  than  th£fie. 
His  family  and  a  half-dozen  priests  could  miike  a  bountiful 
repast  on  one  lamb  and  one  calf,  and  the  rest  would  be  a  very 
liberal  perquisite  for  the  priests. 

In  the  third  passage  cited  (xv.  19)  the  firstlings  are  men- 
tioned again  for  the  special  purpose  of  forbidding  tlie  owner 
to  make  any  profit  from  them  of  any  kind:  "All  the  firstling 
males  that  are  born  of  thy  herd  and  of  thy  flock  tbou  shalt 
sanctify  unto  Jehovah  thy  God :  thou  shalt  do  no  work  with 
the  firstling  of  thine  ox,  nor  shear  the  firstling  of  thy  flock. 
Thou  shalt  eat  it  before  Jehovah  thy  God  year  by  year  in  the 
place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose,  thou  and  thy  household." 
Here  the  eating  must  be  understood  as  in  the  passage 
last  cited. 

Before  dismissing  this  objection,  it  may  be  well  to  remark 
that  if  a  critic,  before  considering  the  passages  involved,  had 
already  reached  the  settled  conclusion  that  Deuteronomy  was 


104  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

written  first,  and  the  Booli  of  Numbers  two  cemturies  later, 
that  both  were  written  by  uninspireid  men,  and  that  the  later 
writer  was  not  at  all  concerned  whether  his  record  should  agree 
or  not  with  the  older  document,  he  would  almost  necessarily 
see  a  conflict  betiween  these  provisions  about  the  firstlings. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  the  critic  accepts  the  account  which  these 
books  give  of  their  own  origin  and  mutual  relations,  and  there- 
fore sees  in  ^N^umbers  the  earlier  legislation,  and  in  Deiiteron- 
omy  an  oratorical  representation  of  the  same,  he  would  need 
only  to  exercise  a  moderate  degree  of  common  sense  to  see  that 
there  is  no  contradiction  between  them.  The  destructive 
critics  have  been  blinded  tO'  obvious  truths  by  having  first 
accepted  a  false  and  destructive  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
several  books. 

16.  As  to  a  Fragment  of  the  Wilderness  Itinerary.  The 
last  of  the  so-called  contradictions  between  Deuteronomy  and 
the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  which  appears  worthy  of 
notice  is  that  between  a  fragment  of  itinerary  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7, 
and  the  corresponding  place  in  the  full  itinerary  of  ]^um. 
xxxiii.  It  is  enough  to  say  of  this,  that  although  Driver  in  his 
Commentary  devotes  two  and  a  half  pages  to  an  attempt  to 
make  something  out  of  it  prejudicial  to  the  history  (118-121), 
he  finally  unites  with  Wellhausen,  Reuss,  Cornill  and  Dillman 
in  the  conclusion  that  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  on  which 
the  objection  is  based  is  an  interpolation.  He  says:  "All 
things  considered,  it  seeans,  however,  likely  that  x.  6,  7  is 
not  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  Deuteronomy;  if  this  be 
the  case,  Deuteronomy  will  be  relieved  of  the  contradiction 
with  ISTum.  xxxiii.  31-33,  though  the  contradiction  will  still 
attach  to  the  source  from  which  the  notice  is  derived,  and  bear 
witness  to  the  existence  of  divergent  traditions  in  our  present 
Pentateuch"  (xxxvi. ;  cf,  118,  121).  The  correctness  of  this 
judgment  can  be  verified  by  any  intelligent  reader  if  he  will 
read  verses  6-9,  marked  as  a  parenthesis  in  our  English  version, 
in  connectiom  with  the  verse  preceding  and  that  following.  Ho 
will  see  that  the  parenthesis  makes  a  break  in  the  connection 
of  thought  and  in  the  chronology,  which  renders  it  incredible 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  105 

that  it  was  uttered  by  Moses.  When  such  unbelievers  as  Well- 
hausen,  Reuss  and  Cornill  had  admitted  this,  it  is  very  strange 
tliat  Driver,  who  claims  to  be  an  evangelical  critic,  while  also 
admitting  it,  should  make  a  show  of  argument  on  the  passage 
contrary  to  his  own  admission.  And  strangeir  still  is  his  closr 
ing  remark  in  the  extract  just  made  from  him,  that  ''the  con- 
tradiction Avill  still  attach  to  the  source  from  which  the  notice 
is  derived,  and  bear  witness  to  the  existence  of  divergent  tra- 
ditions in  our  present  Pentateuch."  Suppose  that  the  con- 
tradiction does  attach  to  the  source  of  the  interpolated  passage; 
does  this  have  any  bearing  on  the  authorship  of  the  book  ? 
Driver  knows  that  it  does  not.  And  why  say  that  a  false  state- 
ment interpolated  in  the  book  "bears  witness  to  the  existence 
of  divergent  traditions  in  our  present  Pentateuch,"  when, 
according  to  his  own  admission,  it  bears  witness  only  to  the 
existence  of  one  or  more  interpolations  so  bunglingly  made  as 
to  be  promptly  recognized  as  such?  It  is  diflScult  to  belie^^e 
that  the  remark  has  any  other  aim  than  to  leave  the  mind  of 
the  reader  impressed  unfavorably  toward  the  real  Deuteron- 
omy. It  is  a  Parthian  arrow,  shot,  backward  in  the  retreat 
from  an  attack  which  the  warrior  is  not  willing  to  acknowl- 
edge as  a  failure. 

All  the  alleged  contradictions  on.  which  the  destructive 
theory  of  Deuteronomy  is  based,  at  least  all  on  which  a  final 
decision  depends,  have  now  passed  in  review  before  the  reader. 
All  have  been  expressed  in  the  words  of  one  or  more  of  the 
ablest  advocates  of  that  theory,  and  in  not  a  single  instance  has 
the  allegation  been  sustained.  In  every  instance  it  has 
appeared  that  fair  dealing  with  the  text,  competent  knowledge 
of  its  details,  and  the  exercise  of  soiund  common  sense,  relieve 
it  from  all  inconsistency  with  the  books  which  precede  it  in 
our  printed  Bibles,  and  which  have  always  preceded  it  in  the 
Hebrew  manuscript  copies.  IsTothing  has  been  found  to  show 
that  Moses  could  not  have  been  the  author  of  all  of  them.  Such 
we  believe  will  be  the  verdict  of  every  person  of  unprejudiced 
mind,  who  will  studiously  read  what  has  been  said  of  these 
sixteen  specifications. 


106  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

§6.     Inteenal  Evidence  foe  the  Late  Date. 

1.  From  the  Expression,  ''Beyond  Jordan."  The  first 
verse  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  corresponds  to  the  modern 
title-page  of  a  book.  It  reads:  ''These  be  the  words  which 
Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  in  the  wilderness, 
in  the  Arabah  over  against  Suph,  between  Paran,  and  Tophel, 
and  Laban,  and  Hazeroth,  and  Dizahab."  It  announces  the 
authorship  of  what  follows,  and  represents  it  as  having  been 
delivered  orally;  and  it  fixes  with  precision  the  locality  in 
which  the  speaking  was  done.  It  was  done  "beyond  Jordan," 
"in  the  wilderness,"  "in  the  Arabah,"  the  Hebrew  name  for 
the  Jordan  valley;  and  "bet^veen"  certain  places  then  well 
known,  but  now  unknown.  In  the  fifth  verse,  which  is  more 
immediately  introductory  to  the  speech  that  follows,  the  local- 
ity is  again  fixed  by  the  remark,  "Beyond  Jordan  in  the  land 
of  Moab  began  Moses  to  declare  this  law."  These  remarks  are 
held  by  the  adverse  critics  as  equivalent  to  an  assertion  that 
Moses  did  not  write  the  book.  Moses  is  definitely  located  "in 
the  land  of  Moab,"  which  was  certainly  east  of  the  Jordan,  and 
as  the  author  styles  this  "beyond  Jordan,"  he  locates  himself 
west  of  the  Jordan,  and  thereby  distinguishes  himself  from 
Moses,  seeing  that  Moses  never  crossed  the  river.  Xot  only  so, 
but  no  Israelite  crossed  the  river  till  after  the  death  of  Moses, 
consequently  no  Israelite  wrote  the  book  while  Moses  was 
living.  It  must  have  been  written  after  the  death  of  Moses, 
and  how  long  after  is  to  be  determined  by  other  sources  of 
information.  Professor  Driver  expresses  the  argument  in  the 
following  form: 

The  use  of  the  phrase  "beyond  Jordan"  for  the  country  east  of 
Jordan,  in  Deut.  i.  1;  v.  3-8;  iv.  41,  46,  47,  49  (as  elsewhere  in  the 
Pentateuch:  comp.  Num.  xxii.  1;  xxxiv.  15),  exactly  as  in  Josh.  ii.  10, 
vii.  7;  ix.  10,  etc.;  Judg.  v.  17;  x.  8,  shows  that  the  author  was  a  resi- 
dent of  western   Palestine    {Int.,  xlii.  f.). 

It  is  true  that  in  these  selected  passages  the  phrase  is 
used  for  the  country  east  of  the  Jordan ;  but  the  professor  has 
made  a  selection  to  suit  his  argument,  and  as  an  exhibition  of 
the  meaning  of  the  original  phrase  it  is  misleading.     A  com- 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  107 

plete  induction  would  have  showed  that  it  is  used  for  hoUi 
sides  of  the  Jordan.  In  Deut.  xi.  30  Moses  says  of  the  moun- 
tains Gerizim  and  Ebal :  "Are  they  not  'beyond  Jordan'  by 
the  way  where  the  sun  goeth  down,  in  the  land  of  the  Canaan- 
ites?"  In  Numbers,  while  tJie  phrase  is  used  in  xxii.  1 
and  xxxiv.  15  for  the  country  east  of  the  river,  as  stated  by 
Dri\»er,  it  is  used  in  xxxii.  19  for  that  west  of  the  river; 
for  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  say:  "We  will  not  inherit  with 
them  beyond  Jordan,  or  forward ;  because  our  inheritance  is 
fallen  to  us  on  this  side  Jordan  eastward." 

Again,  while  the  passages  cited  by  Driver  from  Joshua  and 
Judges  are  correctly  represented,  there  are  others  in  the  same 
books  which  have  the  opposite  reference.  For  example,  in 
Josh.  V.  1  and  ix.  1  the  tribes  and  kings  in  western  Palestine 
are  said  to  be  ''beyond  Jordan,"  and  in  Judg.  vii.  25  the  heads 
of  Oreb  and  Zeeb  are  brought  to  Gideon  "beyond  Jordan" 
while  Gideon  was  yet  on  the  western  side  of  the  river  (comp. 
viii.  4). 

But  the  decisive  fact  is,  that  the  phrase  in  question  is 
frequently  used  for  the  side  of  the  river  on  which  the  speaker 
or  writer  stood,  and  that  therefore  the  original  preposition 
did  not  have  the  meaning  and  force  of  our  English  word  "be- 
yond." The  first  example  is  in  'Num..  xxxii.  19,  already 
quoted.  The  two  and  a  half  tribes  say:  "We  will  not  inherit 
with  them  'beyond  Jordan'  forward;  because  our  inheritance 
is  fallen  to  us  'beyond  Jordan'  eastward."  Here  "beyond" 
in  the  latter  clause  represents  the  same  preposition  (eher)  in 
the  original  as  in  the  former  clause,  and  it  should  be  trans- 
lated by  the  same  word  in  English.  Of  the  translation  w© 
shall  have  something  to  say  further  on.  Each  side  of  the 
river  is  here  called  "beyond  Jordan,"  and  the  two  are  dis- 
tinguished by  adding  "forward"  to  one,  and  "eastward"  to 
the  other.  In  Deut.  iii.  8  Moses,  standing  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan, says:  "We  took  at  that  time  out  of  the  hand  of  the  two 
kings  of  the  Amorites  the  land  that  was  'beyond  Jordan'  from 
the  river  of  Arnon  unto  mount  Hermon ;"  but  the  land  was 
on  the  same  side  with  the  speaker.     The  Book  of  Joshua  was 


108  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

certainly  written  west  of  the  Jordan,  yet  the  writer,  in  his 
two  remarks  ah-eady  quoted  (v.  1;  ix.  1),  speaks  of  the  tribes 
of  Canaan  and  the  kings  of  Canaan  as  being  "beyond  Jor- 
dan." The  same  is  true  of  the  author  of  Judges,  who  speaks 
of  Gideon  as  being  "beyond  Jordan,"  when  he  was  on  the 
same  side  with  the  writer  (viii.  4).  This  usage  continues 
even  into  the  latest  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  II. 
Kings  iv.  24  Solomon  is  said  to  have  dominion  over  all  the  re- 
gion "beyond  the  river,"  though  all  were  on  the  same  side  of 
the  river  with  the  writer.  In  Ezra  viii.  36  the  writer  speaks 
of  "the  governors  beyond  the  river,"  meaning  those  on  the 
same  side  with  himself;  and  in  I.  Chron.  xxvi.  30  the  writer, 
who  was  undoubtedly  in  Palestine,  speaks  of  men  who  were 
"beyond  Jordan  westward."  These  examples  demonstrate 
that  the  Hebrew  preposition  (eher)  translated  "beyond,"  does 
not,  by  its  own  force,  locate  its  object  on  the  opposite  side 
from  him  who  uses  it.  They  demonstrate  that  the  opening 
words  of  Deuteronomy,  "These  be  the  words  which  Moses 
spake  to  all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  in  the  wilderness,"  may 
have  been  written  by  Moses  as  certainly  as  by  any  other  wri- 
ter, and  that  the  argument  based  upon  them  is  worthless, 

Andrew  Harper's  presentation  of  the  argimient  under  dis- 
cussion has  some  marks  of  originality,  and  it  must  not  be 
passed  by.     He  says: 

Wherever  the  expression  "beyond  Jordan"  is  used  in  the  portions 
where  the  author  speaks  for  himself,  it  signifies  the  land  of  Moab  (cf. 
Deut.  i.  1,  5;  iv.  41,  46,  47,  49).  Wherever,  on  the  contrary,  Moses  is 
Introduced  speaking  in  the  first  person,  "beyond  Jordan"  denotes  the 
land  of  Israel  (iii.  20,  25;  xi.  30).  The  only  exception  is  iii.  8,  where, 
at  the  beginning  of  a  long  archaeological  note,  which  can  not  originally 
have  formed  part  of  the  speech  of  Moses,  and  consequently  must  be  a 
comment  of  the  writer,  or  of  a  later  editor  of  Deuteronomy,  "beyond 
Jordan"  signifies  the  land  of  Moab.  If,  consequently,  the  book  be 
taken  at  its  word,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  professes  to  be  an 
account  of  what  Moses  did  in  the  land  of  Moab,  before  his  death, 
written  by  another  person  who  lived  west  of  the  Jordan  {Com.,  4,  5). 

Notwithstanding  the  extreme  confidence  with  which  Mr. 
Harper  here  speaks,  claiming  that  there  is  no  doubt  of  his  con- 
clusion, the  premises  from  which  he  argues  are  baseless  as- 
sumptions; fot  we  have  already  seen  that  the  expression  "be- 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  109 

jond  Jordan"  does  not  bv  its  own  force  locate  either  the  sixjaker 

or  the  person  spoken  of,  and  so  his  first  set  of  references  are 

void  of  the  significance  which  he  attaches  to  them ;  and  as  to 

the  use  of  the  phrase  in  iii.  8,  this  verse  is  not  the  beginning  of 

the  archaeological  note  which  he  rightly  regards  as  a  comment 

by  a  later  hand.     This  note,  as  any  one  can  see  at  a  glance, 

begins  not  at  verse  8,  but  at  verse  11. 

Professor  Driver,  though  not  so  positive  in  his  tone  as  Mr. 

Harper,   is  very  persistent  in  maintaining  the  force  of  this 

phrase  in  the  opening  verses  of  Deuteronomy;   and  well  he 

might  be,  for  on  it,  and  it  alone,  depends  the  constant  assertion 

of  his  class  of  critics  that  this  book  does  not  profess  to  have 

come  from  the  hand  of  Moses.     He  says  on  the  same  page 

quoted  above: 

Its  employment  by  a  writer,  whether  in  East  or  West  Palestine 
of  the  side  on  which  he  himself  stood,  is  difficult  to  understand,  unless 
the  habit  had  arisen  of  viewing  the  regions  on  the  two  sides  of  Jordan 
as  contrasted  with  each  other,  and  this  of  itself  implies  residence  in 
Palestine  {Com.,  xliii.). 

Here  the  professor  betrays  the  fact,  which  he  nowhere  els© 
openly  sets  forth,  that  the  phrase  is  used  of  the  side  on  which 
the  writer  stood ;  and  this  fact,  I  must  insist  again,  nullifies 
completely  the  argument  that  is  based  on  the  expression.  But, 
passing  from  this  point  in  the  extract,  how  does  the  fact  that 
the  habit  of  vie\ving  the  regions  on  the  two  sides  of  Jordan  as 
contrasted  with  each  other,  imply  residence  in  Palestine  ?  Does 
a  man  have  to  reside  in  a  country  in  order  to  view  the  regions 
on  the  two  sides  of  a  river  in  that  country  as  contrasted  with 
each  other  ?  Does  a  man  have  to  reside  in  the  United  States  in 
order  to  view  the  two  regions  on  the  two  sides  of  the  Mississippi 
as  contrasted  with  each  other  ?  Does  not  every  man  who  has 
ever  seen  a  river,  know  that  it  has  two  sides,  and  that  the  two 
sides  are  contrasted  with  each  other,  so  that  if  one  is  the  west 
side,  the  other  is  the  east,  or  if  one  is  the  northern,  the  other 
is  the  southern  ?  And  did  not  the  Israelites,  from  the  time 
they  first  heard  of  the  Jordan,  know  this  much  about  it  ?  And 
when  at  last  they  were  encamped  on  one  side  of  it,  close  to  it^ 
bank,  where  Moses  is  said  to  have  spoken  the  contents  of  this 


llO  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Book  of  Deuteronomy,  could  they  not  see  the  contrast  betweeoi 
this  and  the  other  side  which  was  their  promised  land  ?  To 
ask  these  questions  is  to  answer  them,  and  to  show  that  in 
making  this  argument  the  learned  professor  did  not  see  an  inch 
before  his  face. 

The  confusion  apparent  in  these  arguments  of  the  critics 
has  arisen  from  an  improper  use  of  the  English  prej^osition 
"beyond."  It  is  impossible  that  a  Hebrew  preposition  whose 
object  is  sometimes  located  on  the  same  side  of  the  river  with 
the  person  who  uses  it,  can  be  uniformly  translated  ''beyond.'' 
Yet  this  is  what  the  revisers  of  our  English  version  have 
attempted.  They  attempted  it,  but  were  coanpelled  in  a  few 
instances  to  vary  their  rendering  in  order  to  avoid  misstating 
the  facts.  For  example,  in  I.  Kings  iv.  24,  where  it  is  said 
of  Solomon  that  ''he  had  dominion  over  all  the  region  on  this 
side  of  the  river,  from  Tiphsah  to  Gaza,  even  over  all  the  kings 
on  this  side  the  river,"  had  they  rendered  the  word  "beyond" 
instead  of  "on  this  side,"  in  both  clauses,  they  would  have  had 
Solomon  reigning  over  the  region  and  the  kings  north  of  the 
Euphrates.  Again,  had  they  clung  to  their  chosen  rendering 
in  Num.  xxxii.  19,  they  would  have  made  the  Reubenites  say, 
"We  will  not  inherit  with  them  beyond  Jordan  forward ;  be- 
cause our  inheritance  is  fallen  to  us  beyond  Jordan  eastward ;" 
thus  locating  the  speakers  on  both  sides  of  the  river  at  one 
time.  Yet  again,  in  I.  Sam.  xiv.  4,  where  the  writer  speaks 
of  the  two  crags  that  were  between  the  camp  of  Saul  and 
that  of  the  Philistines,  they  would  have  said,  "There  was  a 
rocky  crag  beyond,  and  a  rocky  crag  beyond,"  instead  of  say- 
ing, "on  this  side"  and  "on  the  other  side."  In  all  of  these 
instances  they  were  com]>elled  to  follow  the  version  which  they 
were  revising. 

The  revisers  have  in  some  instances,  where  they  adhere  to 
the  rendering  "beyond,"  committed  the  very  mistake  which  in 
the  three  last  cited  they  avoided  by  following  the  old  version. 
For  example,  they  make  Moses  say  in  Deut.  iii.  8,  "We  took  at 
that  time  ovit  of  the  hands  of  the  two  kings  of  the  Amorites  the 
land  that  was  beyond  Jordan  from  the  river  Arnon  to  mount 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTEROXOMY.  Ill 

Ilermon,"  though  the  hind  mentioned  was  not  beyond  Jordan, 
but  on  the  same  side  with  Moses.  They  make  Joshua  say  to 
the  two  and  a  half  tribes  before  they  crossed  the  river,  '^'Your 
■w.ives,  your  littk'  ones  and  your  cattle  shall  remain  in  the  land 
which  Moses  gave  you  beyond  -Jordan,"  when  it  was  nof  beyond, 
but  on  the  same  side  of  the  river  with  themselves ;  and  they 
make  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,  who  unquestionably 
wrote  in  the  country  west  of  the  river,  speak  of  "all  the  kings 
which  were  beyond  Jordan  westward."  They  were  not  beyond 
Jordan,  but  on  the  same  side  with  himself. 

King  James'  translators  recognized  the  ambiguity  of  this 
Hebrew  preposition,  and  wisely  attempted  nO'  uniformity  in  its 
rendering.  They  ascertained  as  l>est  they  could  from  the  con- 
text, the  only  source  of  information  in  case  of  ambiguous  words, 
on  which  side  of  the  river  the  speaker  or  writer  stood,  and 
translated  accordingly.  They  render  it  on  tliis  side,  on  the 
other  side,  or  l>eyond,  as  the  context  requires,  and  in  no  instance 
have  they  made  their  renderings  contradict  the  facts.  The 
critics  could  have  learned  from  the  very  translation  which  some 
of  them  helped  to  revise,  if  not  from  their  own  knowledge  of 
IlebreAV,  that  they  were  committing  an  error.  This  translation 
has  the  opening  sentence  of  Deuteronomy  rendered,  "These  be 
the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  on  tbis  side  Jordan 
in  the  wildeimess"  (verse  1),  and,  "On  this  side  Jordan  in  the 
land  of  Ifoab"  (verse  5)  ;  and  thus  it  locates  the  writer  of  the 
book  on  the  same  side  of  the  river  with  Moses.  This  is  cer- 
tainly correct  if  either  Moses  or  one  of  his  conteanporaries  wrote 
this  preface.  It  is  only  after  reaching  the  conclusion  in  some 
other  way  that  some  one  west  of  the  river  wrote  it,  that  any 
scholar  could  think  of  rendering  the  preposition  "beyond."  As 
this  rendering  was  suggested  by  this  preconception,  it  can  not 
furnish  e\ddence  that  the  preconception  is  correct.  One  might 
as  well  attempt  to  make  the  roof  of  the  house  wipport  the  foiin- 
dation.  The  argument,  then,  by  wdiich  critics  attempt  to  make 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  claim  for  itself  an  author  who  lived 
west  of  the  Jordan  and  after  the  death  of  Moses,  is  a  fallacy 
unworthy  of  modern  scholarship. 


112  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

2.  Passageis  Implying  Dates  Long  After  the  Events. 
Professor  Driver  says : 

There  are  passages  in  Deuteronomy  showing  that  the  author  live*] 
at  a  distance  from  the  period  which  he  describes.  Thus,  if  i.  3 
(eleventh  month)  be  compared  with  Num.  xxxiii.  38  (fifth  month), 
which  fixes  the  date  of  Num.  xx.  22-28,  it  appears  that  the  whole  of 
the  events  reviewed  in  ii.  2  to  iii.  29  had  taken  place  during  the  six 
months  preceding  the  time  when,  if  Moses  be  the  author,  the  dis- 
course must  have  been  delivered.  In  such  a  situation,  however,  the 
repeated  "at  that  time"'  (ii.  34;  iii.  4,  8,  12,  18,  21,  23),  as  also  "unto 
this  day"  in  iii.  14,  though  suitable  when  a  longer  period  had  elapsed, 
appears  inappropriate.  Chaps,  v.  3  and  xi.  2-7  point  in  the  same 
direction   {Com.,  xliii.). 

In  this  argument  the  expression  "at  that  time"  is  pressed 
into  a  service  Avhich  is  contrary  to  its  nature.  It  does  not,  and 
it  can  not,  of  itself,  show  that  the  interval  which  it  implies  is 
either  a  long  one  or  a  short  one.  The  interval,  whether  long 
or  short,  is  to  be  ascertained  from  the  context,  and  not  from 
this  expression.  I  may  say,  Yesterday  at  sunset  the  sky  was 
clear,  and  no  one  at  that  time  expected  foul  weather  today ;  or 
I  may  say.  Just  one  year  ago  to-day  our  country  was  engaged 
in  war,  and  at  that  time  no  one  expected  the  peaceful  times 
that  we  now  enjoy.  Admiral  Dewey  might  have  said  in  his 
report  of  the  battle  of  Manila,  I  entered  the  bay  at  night,  and 
at  that  time  I  kne^v  not  at  what  moment  my  ship  might  be 
blown  up  by  hidden  torpedoes.  Thousands  of  instances  of 
such  use  of  the  expression  might  be  adduced.  Why  should  it 
be  thought,  then,  that  this  expression,  when  used  by  Moses,  or 
when  put  into  his  mouth  by  another,  must  mean  a  longer  period 
than  six  months  in  the  past?  In  the  passages  cited,  Moses 
says,  or  is  made  to  say,  of  Sihon :  "We  smote  him  and  his  sons, 
and  all  his  j^eople.  And  we  took  all  his  cities  at  that  time." 
At  what  time?  At  the  time  when  we  smote  him.  This  was 
done  probably  less  than  three  months  previous.  If  that  was 
not  long  enough  for  the  expression  "at  that  time,"  what  should 
Moses  have  said  ?  Let  the  critic  tell  us.  In  the  next  passage 
Moses  speaks  of  Og,  and  says :  "We  smote  him  until  there  was 
nothing  left  to  him  remaining.  And  we  took  all  his  cities  at 
that  time."     Ought  he  to  have  said,  "at  this  time"  ?     In  the 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  113 

next,  referring  to  the  same  two  conquests,  Moses  says :  ''Wo 
took  the  land  at  that  time  out  of  the  hand  of  the  two  kings  of 
the  Amorites."  The  next  is  a  repetition  of  the  same  thought, 
and  the  next  is  the  statement :  ''I  commanded  you  at  that  time, 
saying,  Jehovah  yoiur  God  hath  given  you  this  land  to  possess 
it."  Finally  he  tells  the  people:  "At  that  time  I  besought 
Jehovah  to  let  me  go  over  into  the  promised  land." 

This  argument  is  so  ill  conceived,  and  even  puerile,  that 
I  would  be  ashamed  to  spend  time  on  it  were  it  not  that  it  has 
been  handed  down  in  a  traditionary  way  from  critical  father 
to  critical  son,  as  though  it  were  a  rich  inheritance.-^^  In 
Driver's  book  its  nakedness  is  covered  up  by  referring  to  the 
l)assages  with  Arabic  figures  and  avoiding  the  quotation  of  a 
single  one. 

Driver's  second  argument  on  the  same  passage  is  this : 

The  writer,  though  aware  of  the  fact  of  the  forty  years'  wander- 
ings (viii.  2,  4),  does  not  appear  to  realize  fully  the  length  of  the 
interval,  and  identifies  those  whom  he  addresses  with  the  generation 
that  came  out  of  Egypt  in  a  manner  which  betrays  that  he  is  not 
speaking  as  a  contemporary. 

Yes;  he  does  thus  address  them.  He  says,  ''Thou  shalt 
remember  all  the  way  which  Jehovah  thy  God  led  thee  these 
forty  years  in  the  wilderness,"  etc.  And  why  should  he  not? 
It  is  true  that  all  of  those  who  were  over  twenty  years  of  age 
when  they  crossed  the  Eed  Sea  had  died,  but  all,  or  nearly  all, 
who  weie  twenty  years  old  or  under  when  they  crossed  the  sea 
were  alive,  and  could  remember  every  incident  of  the  forty 
years.  They  were  between  forty  and  sixty  years  of  ag;e.  The 
rest  had  been  born  during  the  forty  years,  some  in  one  year  and 
some  in  another,  down  to  the  youngest  person  standing  there 
to  hear ;  and  the  boys  and  girls  only  ten  years  of  age  had  heard 
the  "whole  story  told  by  their  elders  a  thousand  times.  Who 
is  it  that  betrays  himself  here,  the  writer  of  the  book,  or  the 
critic  who  invented,  and  the  others  who  have  blindly  accepted 
this  blundering  criticism  ? 

The  third  argument  is  expressed  in  these  lines : 

'=Comp.  Robertson  Smith,  0.  T.,  326;   Addis,  Doc.  of  Hex.,  xv.f. 


114  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

In  ii.  12  ("As  Israel  did  unto  the  land  of  his  possession")  there 
is  an  evident  anachronism;  however,  some  writers  have  treated  the 
antiquarian  notices  in  ii.  10-12,  20-23  (though  otherwise  in  the  style 
of  Deuteronomy,  and  similar  to  iii.  9,  11,  13;  xi.  30)   as  glosses. 

Here  the  j^i'ofessor  was  about  to  put  his  feet  on  thin  ice, 
but  he  drew  back  in  time.  Of  course,  these  antiquarian  notices 
are  glosses,  as  any  one  can  see  who  will  observe  how  rudely 
every  one  of  them  breaks  the  close  connection  of  thought  in  the 
words  preceding  and  following  it.  At  the  beginning  of  every 
one  of  them  the  sj)eaker's  voice  is  suspended,  and  another 
person  speaks  through  the  parenthesis.  Whether  Moses  is  the 
speaker,  or  the  hypothetical  Deuteronomist,  as  these  paren- 
theses are  by  a  different  hand,  they  can  furnish  no  evidence 
against  the  Mosaic  authorship.  Yet  they  do  furnish  evidence 
unfavorable  to  the  date  of  Deuteronomy  assumed  by  these 
critics.  For  after  the  days  of  Josiah,  and  in  the  absence  of 
all  historic  documents  earlier  than  the  eighth  century,  Avhat 
living  Israelite  knew  anything,  or  could  know  anything,  about 
the  Emim,  the  Horites,  tlie  Zamzmnmim,  the  Awim,  and 
others  whose  moveanents  are  mentioned  in  those  notes?  And 
if  he  did,  what  imaginable  motive  could  he  have  had  for  inter- 
polating these  statements  about  them  in  the  supposed  speech  of 
Moses  ?  There  is  no  answer  to  these  questions.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  Moses  actually  made  these  speeches,  there  Avere  men 
living  at  the  time,  and  for  a  generation  or  two  after  the  time, 
who  may  have  had  possession  of  these  facts.,  and  avIio  through 
an  antiquarian  interest  may  have  made  the  interpolatious. 
Whatever  bearing  these  notes  have,  then,  on  the  question  of 
authorship,  it  is  decidedly,  if  not  conclusively,  in  favor  of 
Moses. 

Driver's  fourth  argument,  on  the  same  page,  is  no  moTe 
satisfactO'ry  than  either  of  the  preceding: 

The  expression,  "When  ye  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,"  not  merely 
in  xxiv.  9;  xxv.  17,  but  also  in  xxv.  5  (cf.  4),  of  an  incident  quite  at 
the  end  of  the  forty  years'  wanderings  (cf.  iv.  45,  46),  could  not  have 
been  used  naturally  by  Moses,  speaking  less  than  six  months  after- 
wards, but  testifies  to  a  writer  of  a  later  age,  in  which  the  forty  years 
had  dwindled  to  a  point. 


THE  BOOK  OF  J)EUTEliOXOMY.  115 

If  this  is  true,  tiim  the  Deuteroaioniist,  with  all  his  skill  in 
siiiiulating  Moses,  either  betrayed  himself  at  this  point, 
or  thought,  contrary  to  Professor  Driver,  that  these  words  were 
natural  under  the  circumstances..  We  can  judge  whether  he 
or  his  critics  are  correct,  only  by  taking  the  expression  in  its 
connections.  First,  then,  "Remember  what  Jehovah  thy  God 
did  to  Miriam  by  the  way  as  ye  came  forth  out  of  Egypt." 
Was  it  unnatural,  at  the  close  of  the  forty  years,  for  Moses  to 
say  this  ?  Did  not  the  leprosy  of  Miriam  occur  "by  the  way 
as  they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt"  ?  Second,  "Remember  what 
Amalek  did  unto  thee  by  the  way  as  ye  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt."  Is  tliei'e  anything  unnatural  in  this?  Did  not 
Amalek  do  this  by  the  way  ?  Third,  the  Ammonites 
and  Moabites  are  censured,  "becavise  they  met  you  not 
with  bread  and  watea*  in  the  way  when  ye  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt."  Does  this  use  of  the  expression  differ  from  the  others  ? 
In  all  these  instances  the  words,  "as  ye  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt,"  or  "when  ye  came  fortli  out  of  Egypt,"  are  evidently 
used,  not  of  the  moment  when  they  crossed  the  Red  Sea,  but 
of  their  whole  journey  from  Egvpt  to  the  plain  of  Moab,  ^\diere 
Moses  was  speaking;  and  any  e\^ent  which  had  transpired, 
whether  at  the  beginning  or  near  the  end,  is  properly  referred 
to  in  this  way.  It  is  like  a  child  fishing  in  a  wash-tub,  to 
search  in  these  passages  for  evidence  against  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  these  speeches. 

3.  Evidence  from  Differences  between  the  Laws  of  Exodus 
and  Deuteronomy.  It  is  argued  that  the  differences  bet^veen 
certain  laws  in  Deuteronomy  and  those  in  Exodus  show  that 
the  former  were  given  in  a  latei'  age  than  the  latter,  and  when 
the  latter  had  ceased  to  be  "adequate  to  the  nation's  needs." 
Driver  gives  six  specifications  under  this  head  which  we  shall 
notice : 

(1)  The  first  is  the  law  of  the  kingdom,  as  it  is  styled,  in 
Deut.  xvii.  14-20,  which,  he  says,  "is  colored  by  reminiscences 
of  the  monarchy  of  Solomon."  "The  argument,"  he  continues 
to  say,  "does  not  deny  that  Moses  may  have  made  provision  for 
the  establishment  of  a  monarch^'  in  Israel,  but  affirms  that  the 


116  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OB' 

form  in  which  the  provision  is  here  cast  bears  the  stamp  of  a 
Lnter  age"  {Com.,  xlvi.).^^ 

If,  as  is  here  alleged,  this  law  is  colored  bj  reininiscences  of 
the  monarchy  of  Solomon,  thei*e  is  no  need  of  further  evidence 
that  it  was  not  given  by  Moses ;  but  if,  instead  of  being  colored 
by  reminiscences,  it  is  colored  by  anticipation  of  such  a  mon- 
archy, the  argument  is  reversed.  If,  in  other  words,  the 
expressions  containing  the  suj^poeed  allusion  to  Solomon  may 
have  been  used  by  a  man  of  wise  human  foresight,  they  contain 
no  evidence  against  the  Mosaic  authorship.  We  can  judge  of 
this  only  by  placing  the  eixpressions  in  print  before  us,  and 
carefully  considering  their  forca  The  first  provision  of  the 
law'  has  reference  to  the  nationality  of  the  king:  "When  thou 
art  come  into  the  land  which  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee,  and 
shalt  possess  it,  and  slialt  dwell  therein,  and  shalt  say,  I  will 
set  a  king  over  me,  like  as  all  the  nations  that  are  round  abouc 
me;  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over  thee  whom 
Jehovah  thy  God  shall  choose:  one  from  among  thy  brethren 
shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee;  thou  mayest  not  put  a  foreigner 
over  thee,  who  is  not  thy  brother." 

What  was  to  prevent  Moees  from  anticipating  all  this  ?  He 
was  starting  his  people  on  their  national  career  without  a  king, 
when  all  the  nations  round  about  them  had  kings,  and  had  been 
ruled  by  them  in  all  the  past.  He  would  have  been  grossly 
ignorant  of  human  nature  had  he  not  anticipated  and  feared 
that  in  the  course  of  time  they  would  grow  weary  of  such  sin- 
gularity, and  want  to  be  like  other  nations.  Such  has  been 
the  fearful  anticipation  of  eveTy  body  of  patrioits  who  have  ever 
organized  a  democratic  or  republican  form  of  govermnent. 
And  as  to  the  nationality  of  the  king,  inasmuch  as  Israel  had 
no  man  of  royal  blood,-  how  prone  they  woiild  be,  when  the 
royal  fever  should  seize  them,  to  offer  the  throne  to  some  foreign 
prince.      Even  modern  Greece  was  induced  by  this  considerra- 


"  Driver  here  follows  Kuenen,  who  says:  "The  warnings  against 
trade  with  Egypt,  polygamy  and  great  riches,  are  borrowed  from  the 
traditions  concerning  the  wise  king,  and  are  directed  against  the  errors 
into  which  he  fell"   (Eel.  of  Israel  II.  33  f.). 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  117 

tion.,  when  she  became  a  kingdom,  to  import  a  sprig  of  royalty 
from  Denmark.  Thus  far,  then,  everything  in  the  law  accords 
with  a  Mosaic  origin.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Deuteronomy  was 
first  published  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  Avhen  Israel  had  been 
ruled  by  a  line  of  kings  for  more  than  four  hundred  years,  and 
the  j>eople  of  Judah  had  become  so  wedded  to  the  house  of 
David  as  to  abhor  the  thought  of  submitting  to  any  oj;her  sover- 
eign, what  co'uld  have  been  the  motive  for  wi'iting  such  a  law 
as  this  ?  It  would  be  as  if  the  British  Parliament  should  at 
its  present  session  pass  a  law  that  when,  hereafter,  a  monarch 
of  the  empire  shall  be  crowned,  he  shall  not  be  a  Frenchman. 

The  next  provision  of  the  law  is  this:  "Only  he  shall  not 
multiply  horses  to  himself,  nor  cause  the  people  to  return  to 
Egypt  to  the  end  that  he  should  multiply  ho'rees ;  forasmuch 
as  Jehovah  hath  said  to  yoii.  Ye  shall  henceforth  return  no  more 
that  way."  What  is  there  here  that  Moses  may  not  have  antic- 
ipated ?  He  had  left  a  land  which  was  famous  for  its  chariots 
and  horsemen,  and  how  could  he  avoid  fearing  that  his  people 
might  some  day  imitate  Egypt  in  this  particular,  and  thus 
become  a  military  instead  of  an  agricultural  people  ?  And 
he  knew  perfectly  well  that  if  they  or  their  possible  king  should 
be  fired  with  this  kind  of  ambition,  many  of  them  would  be 
drawn  back  into  Egypt  by  the  traffic  in  horses,  and  would  thus 
be  brought  once  more  under  the  idolatrous  influences  of  that 
heathen  land.  On  the  other  hand,  why  should  this  warning  be 
given  to  the  Israel  of  Josiah's  reign,  when  the  thought  of  multi- 
plying horses  had  never  entered  the  mind  of  a  Hebrew  monarch 
since  the  days  of  Solomon  ?  The  people  remembered  too  well 
the  oppressive  burdens  of  Solomon's  reign,  entailed  partly  by 
his  attempt  to  build  up  an  army  of  chariots  and  horsemen,  a 
burden  which  caused  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes,  to  need  any 
warning  against  it  at  so  late  a  day  as  Josiah's  reigii.  It  is 
true,  as  some  critics  have  said  in  answer  tO'  this  ebjection,  that 
the  prophets  liad  rebuked  some  of  the  kings  of  Judah  for 
trusting  in  horses  rather  than  in  Jehovah,  but  it  was  when  thev 
were  trusting  in  help  from  the  cavalrs'  of  Egypt,  and  not  that 


ilS  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

they  had,  or  desired  to  have,  cavalry  of  their  own.      (See  Isa. 
xxxi.  1 ;  xxxvi.  9.) 

The  next  provision  is  this:  "Neither  shall  he  multiply 
wives,  that  his  heart  turn  not  away;  neither  shall  he  greatly 
multiply  to  himself  silver  and  gold."  Rameses  II.,  from  whom 
Moses  fled  into  the  land  of  Midian,  and  who  died  while  he  was 
there,  left  an  inscription  in  which  he  declares  that  he  had  sixty- 
nine  daughters  and  seventy  sons ;  and,  of  course,  he  had  multi- 
plied wives  unto  himself.  Moses  Avould  have  been  blind  not 
to  have  seen  the  evils  of  his  course,  and  not  to  have  wdsbed  to 
guard  any  future  king  of  his  own  people  against  this  great 
folly.  But  a  w^-iter  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  when  the  kings  of 
Judah,  warned  by  Solomon's  bad  example  in  violating;  this  law, 
had  abstained  from  this  vice  through,  many  generations,  it  would 
have  been  idle  and  preposterous  to  formally  originate  such 
a  law.  As  to  multiplying  silver  and  gold,  there  was  even  less 
danger  of  this  in  the  poverty-stricken  condition  of  Judah  under 
Josiab;  while  in  the  days  of  Moses  the  gracious  promises  of 
God  and  the  bright  hopes  of  Israel  for  temporal  prospeTity, 
and  even  the  promise  that  Israel  should  lend  to  the  nations, 
and  borrow  from  none,  made  it  exceedingly  probable  tliat  the 
multij}lication  of  silver  and  gold,  wdth  all  its  corrupting  effects, 
would  be  one  of  the  future  dangers  to  both  king  and  j)'eople. 

Respecting  the  last  provision  of  this  law,  that  the  king 
should  have  a  copy  of  it,  and  that  he  sliould  be  governed  by  it 
in  all  of  his  personal  as  well  as  his  official  conduct,  there  is  no 
pretense  that  it  is  inappropriate  to  the  time  of  Moses.  "We 
leave  the  topic,  then,  with  the  fullest  assurance  that  the  evidence 
in  the  case  is  altogether  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  this 
statute. 

Driver,  however,  supplements  his  argument  from  the  fonn 

of  the  law  by  an  appeal  to  the  facts  connected  with  tJie  first 

appointment  of  a  king  by  Samuel.     He  argues  thus : 

Had  this  law  been  known  in  fact,  either  to  Samuel,  or  to  the 
people  who  demanded  of  him  a  king,  it  is  incredible  either  that  Samuel 
should  have  resisted  the  application  of  the  people  as  he  is  represented 
as  doing,  or  that  the  people  should  not  have  appealed  to  the  law  as 
a  sufficient  justification  of  their  request  {Com.,  213). 


The  book  of  deuteroi^omy.  Ii9 

Whether  this  is  true  or  not,  dejiends  on  the  form  of  the 
law.  If  the  law  gave  the  i>eople  the  privilege  of  making  a  king 
at  any  time  they  might  choose  to  do  so,  they  would  undoubt- 
edly have  appealed  to  it  against  Samuel's  remonstrance.  But 
this  it  did  not  do.  It  said :  "When  thou  shalt  say,  I  will  set 
a  king  over  me,  like  all  the  nations  that  are  round  me,  tlioii 
shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over  thee  whom  Jehovah  thy 
God  shall  choose."  These  words  express  the  anticipation  that 
they  would  make  a  king,  but  they  express  neithea*  approval  nor 
disapproval  of  the  act.  Whether  it  would  be  sinful  or  not, 
was  to  depend  on  circumstances  at  the  time.  Samuel  resisted 
the  application  of  the  people,  first  of  all,  because  it  was  setting 
him  aside  as  their  judge,  although  wdien  called  upon  for  an 
expression  they  declared  tliat  there  had  been  no  fault  in  his 
administration  (I.  Sam.  viii.  6-8)  ;  and  secondly,  because  they 
were  rejecting  God  from  reigning  over  them ;  and  this  last 
thought  he  enforced  by  reciting  the  facts  in  tlieir  past  history 
which  showed  that  in  every  time  of  oppression  by  their  enemies 
God  had  raised  up  competent  leaders  to  deliver  them  (xiii. 
G-12).  This  made  it  sinful,  because'  it  was  ungrateful.  In 
the  third  place,  Samuel's  resistance  was  based  on  the  foreseen 
evils  which  the  people  would  bring  upon  themselves  by  this 
change.  I^o  nation  of  antiquity  had  enjoyed  so  inexpensive  a 
form  of  government  as  they,  and  none  had  been  so  free  from 
the  exactions  of  tyrants.  The  evils  of  the  choice  upon  which 
they  were  now  so  intent,  were  fully  pointed  out  tO'  them  (viii. 
8-18),  and  it  was  on  account  of  the  plunge  they  were  about  to 
make  into  a  sea  of  remediless  miseries,  that  he  vehemently 
exhorted  them  to  desist.  Driver's  argument,  then,  is  based  on 
a  misconception  of  the  form  of  the  law,  and  a  still  gi'eater 
misconception  of  the  grounds  on  which  Samuel  urged  his 
remonstrance.  It  furnishes  no  evidence  in  favor  of  a  late 
origin  of  the  law. 

(2)   Driver's  second  specification  is  the  following: 

The  terms  of  Deut.  xvii.  8-13  (cf.  xix.  17),  in  which  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  supreme  tribunal  is  not  prescribed,  but  represented  as 
already  known,  appear  to  presuppose  the  existence  of  the  judicature 
instituted  (according  to  II.  Chron.  xix.  8-11)   by  Jehoshaphat. 


120  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

In  the  first  of  these  references  the  supreme  tribunal  is 
prescribed :  it  is  not  represented  as  alread}-  known ;  but  all 
that  is  said  of  it  looks  to  the  future.  The  introductory  words 
are  these :  ^'Tf  there  arise  a  matter  too  hard  for  thee  in  judg- 
ment, between  blood  and  blood,  between  plea  and  plea,  and 
between  stroke  and  stroke,  being  matters  of  controversy  within 
thy  gates:  then  shalt  thou  arise,  and  get  thee  to  the  place  which 
Jehovah  thy  God  shall  choose  ;  and  thou  shalt  come  to  the  priests 
the  Levites,  and  to  the  judge  that  shall  be  in  those  days :  and 
tliou  shalt  inquire  ;  and  they  shall  show  thee  the  sentence  of  judg- 
ment," etc.  In  these  words  a  supreme  tribunal  is  formally 
constituted ;  it  is  to  consist  of  the  priests  who'  shall  be  at  the 
central  sanctuary,  and  "the  judge  that  shall  be  in  those  days." 
Who  that  judge  Avas  to  be  is  not  prescribed,  but  the  later  history- 
shows  that  he  was  to  be  one  of  those  rulers  called  judges  who 
were  raised  up  by  Jehovah  from  time  to  time  until  the  mon- 
archy was  established,  and  after  that,  the  monarch  himself. 
The  second  passage  (xix.  17)  is  supplementary  to  the  preceding, 
and  prescribes  the  penalty  for  perjury:  "If  an  unrighteous 
witness  rise  up  against  any  man  to  testify  against  him  of  wrong 
doing;  then  both  the  men  between  whom  the  controversy  is, 
shall  stand  before  the  priests  and  the  judges  that  shall  be  in 
those  days ;  and  the  judges  shall  make  diligent  inquisition : 
and,  behold,  if  the  witness  be  a  false  w^itness,  and  hath  testified 
falsely  against  his  brother,  then  shall  ye  do  unto  him  as  he  had 
thought  to  do  unto  his  brother."  Here,  again,  provision  is 
made  for  the  proceedings  in  a  tribunal  "that  shall  be  in  those 
days"  and  not  in  one  already  known.  Finally,  the  woa'k  done  by 
Jehoshaphat  (II.  Chron.  xix.  11),  in  which  he  established  pre^- 
cisely  this  kind  of  judiciary  in  Judah,  instead  of  being  the 
original  inauguration  of  it,  was  a  rene^val  of  it  after  it  had 
fallen  into  neglect;  for  that  proceeding  is  formally  introduced 
by  the  words,  "And  Jehoshaphat  dwelt  at  Jerusalem :  and  he 
went  out  again  among  the  people,  from  Beersheba  to  the  hill 
country  of  Ephraim,  and  brought  them  back  to  Jehovah,  the 
God  of  their  fathers."      Then  follows  the  acoount  of  setting  up 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  121 

judges  in  every  city,  and  giving  them  needed  instruction.  The 
iibsence  of  this  judicature  had  been  a  departure  from  Jehovah; 
the  re-establishment  of  it  was  a  return  to  Jehovah. 

Thus  the  very  passages  relied  upon  to  prove  a  late  date  for 
this  legislation,  proves  the  reverse — so  grossly  has  the  perverted 
vision  of  the  critics  distorted  the  sacred  text.  It  is  worthy 
of  notice,  here,  that,  notwithstanding  the  discredit  which  our 
critics  attach  to  Chronicles,  they  are  not  ashamed  to  appeal  to 
it  when  they  think  it  speaks  to  suit  them. 

(3)  Driver  next  s})ecifies  the  prohibition  in  Deuteronomy 
of  the  worship  of  the  ''host  of  heaven."      He  says : 

The  forms  of  idolatry  alluded  to,  especially  the  worship  of  the 
"host  of  heaven"  (iv.  19;  vii.  3),  point  to  a  date  not  earlier  than  the 
second  half  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  It  is  true  the  worship  of  the 
sun  and  moon  is  ancient,  as  is  attested  even  by  the  names  of  places  in 
Canaan;  but  in  the  notices  (which  are  frequent)  of  idolatrous  prac- 
tices in  the  historical  books  from  Judges  to  Kings,  no  mention  of  the 
"host  of  heaven"  occurs  till  the  reign  of  Ahaz;  and  in  the  seventh 
century  it  is  alluded  to  frequently. 

This  argument  is  frivolous.  It  assumes  that  the  prohibi- 
tion of  a  certain  sin  must  be  of  later  date  than  the  commission 
of  it.  And  this,  too,  wheoi  it  is  admitted  that  the  sin  in  ques- 
tion was  an  ancient  one,  certainly  more  ancient  than  Moses. 
It  was  practiced  by  the  Egyptians  from  whom  Moses  had  deliv- 
ered his  people.  If  it  was  not  practiced  in  Israel  till  the  time 
of  Ahaz,  this  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  very  fact  that  it  had 
been  so  plainly  j^rohibited  by  name  in  the  law  of  Moses.  It 
would  be  just  as  reasonable  to  argue  that  the  prohibition  against 
devoting  children  to  Molech  (Lev.  xviii.  21)  was  not  known 
until  the  time  of  Ahaz,  because  he  was  the  first  king  of  Israel  to 
practice  it  (II.  Kings  xvi.  3).  Moses  had  personal  knowledge 
of  both  these  forms  of  idolatry,  and  he  had  good  reason  to  pro- 
hibit both  by  name. 

(4)  In  his  next  specification  Driver  completely  ignores  the 
element  of  divine  inspiration,  as  he  does  in  all  the  others  in  a 
less  degree.  He  follows  Dillman  in  saying:  'The  style  of 
Deuteronomy,  in  its  rhetorical  fullness  and  breadth  of  diction, 
implies  a  long  development  of  the  art  of  public  oratory,  and  is 


122  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

not  of  a  character  to  belong  to  the  first  age  of  Hebrew  litera- 
ture." If  Moses  spoke  by  inspiration  of  God,  this  is  an  idle 
remark;  and  no  man  could  make  it  seriously  who  regarded 
the  speaker  as  being  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  there- 
fore a  rationalistic  argument  which  he  and  Dillman,  from 
■whom  he  copies  it,  have  adopted  from  unbelieving  critics. 
But,  apart  from  this,  the  argument  ignores  a  perfectly  natural 
source  from  which  this  '^public  oratory"  may  have  been 
acquired.  If  Moses  lived  in  the  first  period  of  Egyptian  liter- 
ature, and  was  instructed  in  all  the  learning  of  the  Egyptians, 
a  man  mighty  in  word  and  deed,  he  was  able  to  use  the  Hebrew 
tongue  with  all  the  excellencies  of  oratory  which  had  been 
developed  in  the  Egyptian.  On  the  other  hand,  what  evidence 
have  we  that  such  a  development  of  oratory  existed  in  the 
period  from  Manasseh  to  Josiah,  tliat  we  should  locate  these 
splendid  orations  in  that  interval  ?  On  this  point  these  critics 
are  as  silent  as  the  grave.  They  claim  that  Jeremiah  was  influ- 
enced in  his  style  by  Deuteronomy ;  but  by  whom  was  the  writer 
of  Deuteronomy  influenced  ?  ISTot  by  Isaiah ;  for  the  critics 
earnestly  deny  any  connection  between  the  two.  A  man  pos- 
sessed of  such  oratorical  powers  at  that  time,  would  be  a  far 
greater  intellectual  marvel  than  the  wildest  imagination  can 
suppose  Moses  to  have  been  after  enjoying  the  culture  of  the 
golden  period  of  Egyptian  literature.  True,  Moses  said,  when 
his  commission  was  first  given,  "Lord,  I  am  not  eloquent.  I 
am  slow  of  speech,  and  of  a  slow  tongue"  (Ex.  iv.  10)  ;  but  that 
was  aftCT  his  sojourn  of  forty  years  as  a  shepherd  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  before  his  inspiration  or  his  long  experience  in 
])ublic  speaking  to  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Under  this  specification, 
as  under  others  that  we  have  noticed,  the  argument  stands 
reversed ;  and  it  is  intrinsically  more  probable  that  the  dis- 
courses in  Deuteronomy  came  from  the  lips  of  Moses  than  from 
those  of  any  man  who  lived  in  Israel  after  his  time. 

(5)  We  next  notice  the  argument  that  "the  prophetic 
teaching  of  Deuteronomy,  the  dominant  theological  ideas,  the 
points  of  vie^v  under  which  the  laws  are  presented,  the  princi- 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  123 

pies  by  which  coiuluct  is  estimated,  presuppose  a  relatively 
advanced  stage  of  theological  reflection,  as  they  also  approxi- 
mate to  what  is  found  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel."  Here,  again, 
the  inspiration  of  the  author  is  ignored,  or,  rather,  it  is  assumed 
that  there  was  none.  The  points  of  superiority  mentioned 
are  claimed  as  the  result,  not  of  divine  enlightenment,  but  of 
"a  relatively  advanced  stage  of  theological  reflection."  Once 
more  we  are  in  the  footsteps  of  rationalism.  And  suppose  that 
all  this  is  true,  I  should  like  to  know  what  Israelite  in  the  days 
of  Josiah  or  before  was  possessed  of  a  "more  advanced  stage 
of  theological  reflection"  than  Moses,  who  communed  with  God 
through  forty  years  of  shepherd  life  into  which  he  was  thrown 
by  his  zeal  for  God,  and  then  communed  with  the  same  God 
under  the  light  of  an  increasing  knowledge  of  his  character  for 
forty  years  more  of  active  service  as  the  ruler  of  God's  cho'sen 
people?  Had  he  no  time  for  "advanced  theological  reflection"  ? 
Was  his  head  a  blockhead  ? 

(6)  The  next  specification  under  the  present  head  is 
expressed  in  these  words : 

The  law  in  Deut.  xviii.  20-22  presupposes  an  age  in  which  the 
true  prophets  found  themselves  in  conflict  with  numerous  and  influen- 
tial false  prophets,  and  it  became  necessary  to  supply  Israel  with  the 
means  of  distinguishing  them;  i.e.,  the  period  from  the  eighth  cen- 
tury onward. 

The  law  referred  to  reads  thus:  "But  the  prophet,  that 
shall  speak  a  word  presumptuously  in  my  name,  which  I  have 
not  commanded  him  to  speak,  or  that  shall  speak  in  the  name 
of  other  gods,  that  same  prophet  shall  die.  And  if  thoai  say 
in  thine  heart,  How  shall  we  know  the  word  Avhich  Jehovah 
hath  not  spoken?  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the 
thing  which  Jehovah  hath  not  spoken :  the  prophet  hath  spoken 
it  presumptuously,  thou  shalt  not  be  afraid  of  him."  What 
is  there  in  this  law  to  show  that  when  it  w^as  written,  the  true 
prophets  found  themselves  in  conflict  wath  numerous,  and  influ- 
ential false  prophets  ?  If  plain  w^ords  can  mean  anything,  the 
law  is  predictive.  There  is  no  hint  or  ground  for  an  infer- 
ence that  the  false  prophets  w^ere  already  in  existence,  but  the 


l24  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

very  ojjposite.  It  is  only  those  who  deny  the  occurrence  of 
predictive  prophecy  who  can  find  in  this  law  the  presupposition 
of  which  Driver  speaks.  And  to  deny  prophetic  prediction  is 
to  deny  every  clause  in  this  law;  for  not  only  is  the  law  itself 
predictive,  but  the  test  of  a  false  prophet  which  it  prescribes  is 
the  fact  that  his  predictions  are  not  fulfilled.  So  esseaitial 
is  prediction  to  the  existence  of  real  prophetic  powers,  that  a 
prophet  must  have  uttered  some  prediction  that  has  been  ful- 
filled before  he  is  to  be  credited  as  a  prophet  at  all.  This  argu- 
ment is  another  example  of  tacitly  denying  the  reality  of  inspi- 
ration. It  is  the  argmnent  of  critics  who  deny  the  supeirnatural, 
though  employed  by  some  who  claim  to  accept  it.  The 
weapons  of  this  warfare,  we  continue  to  see,  were  forged  by  the 
enemies  of  the  Bible. 

(7)  We  notice  only  one  more  of  Driver's  specifications. 
It  is  the  law  against  the  removal  of  landmarks:  "Thou  shalt 
not  remove  thy  neighbour's  landmark,  Avhich  they  of  old  time 
have  set  in  thine  inheritance  which  thou  shalt  inherit,  in  the 
land  that  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee  to  possess  it"  (xix.  14). 

The  argument  of  this  law  is  a  commonplace  among  the 
adverse  critics,  and  by  Driver  it  is  stated  as  follows: 

The  law,  in  its  present  wording,  presupposes  the  occupation  of 
Canaan  by  the  Israelites,  "they  of  old  time"  being  evidently  not  the 
Canaanite  predecessors  of  the  Israelites,  but  the  Israelitish  ancestors 
of  the  present  possessors  {Com.,  235). 

This  statement  contains  two  palpable  contradictions  of  the 
law  "in  its  present  wording."  The  assertion  that  "it  presup- 
poses the  occupation  of  Canaan  by  the  Israelites"  contradicts 
the  words  "in  thine  inheritance  which  thou  shalt  inherit ;"  and 
this  designation  of  the  inheritance  by  the  future  tense,  contra- 
dicts the  representation  that  the  Israelites  addressed  are  "the 
present  possessors."  N'o  grosser  misstatement  of  "the  law  in 
its  present  wording"  could  Avell  be  made.  The  people  are 
addressed  as  the  future  possessors  of  the  land,  and  the  clause 
"which  they  of  old  times  have  set  up"  may  refer  either  to  the 
landmarks  which  the  Canaanites  set  up,  and  which  would  still 
mark  the  boundaries  of  many  estates,  or  the  landmarks  which 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  125 

the  Israelites  would  have  set  up.  As  Hebrew  verbs  have  no 
future  perfect  tense,  the  past  tense  is  used  in  the  place  of  it  in 
connection  with  future  verbs  in  related  clauses.  This  well- 
known  grammatical  peculiarity  of  the  language  should  have 
guarded  Hebrew  scholars  from  the  blunder  involved  in  this 
argtunent.  Translated  with  reference  to  it,  the  law  was,  "Thou 
shalt  not  remove  thy  neighbour's  landmark,  which  they  of  old 
time  shall  have  set  up."  This  would  protect  all  landmarks, 
whether  set  up  by  Canaanites  or  Israelites.  It  was  needful 
that  the  former  as  well  as  the  latter  be  protected,  not  only 
because  the  former  would  sometimes  mark  the  corners  of  lines 
of  an  Israelite's  land,  but  also  because  the  distance  and  direction 
of  a  new  comer-stone  from  an  old  one  of  the  Canaanites  would 
often  help  to  fix  the  position  of  the  new  one.  It  is  an  every- 
day occurrence,  where  a  section  of  country  has  been  sur^^eyed 
at  different  periods,  for  old  landmarks  to  help  in  determining 
the  location  of  new  ones,  and  vice  versa.  This  argument,  them, 
though  universally  accepted  as  valid  by  destructive  critics,  came 
into  existence  and  is  propagated  only  by  reversing  the  time  ref- 
erence in  the  law. 

4.  Evidence  for  Late  Date  of  the  Blessings  and  Curses,  the 
Song  of  Moses,  and  his  Blessing  of  the  Tribes.  These  three 
docmnents,  occupying  chapters  xxviii.-xxxiii.,  are  held  to  be  of 
later  date  than  the  time  of  Moses,  on  the  ground  of  internal 
evidence. 

(1)  The  predicted  blessings  and  curses  of  chapter  xxviii. 
Andrew  Harper  states  the  argument  in  the  following  paragraph : 

If  any  evidence  were  now  needed  that  this  chapter  was  written 
later  than  the  Mosaic  time,  it  might  be  found  in  the  space  given  to 
the  curses,  and  the  much  heavier  emphasis  laid  upon  them  than  upon 
the  blessings.  Not  that  Moses  might  not  have  prophetically  foretold 
Israel's  disregard  of  the  warnings.  But  if  the  heights  to  which  Israel 
was  actually  to  rise  had  been  before  the  author's  mind  as  still  future, 
Instead  of  being  wrapped  in  the  mists  of  the  past,  he  could  not  but 
have  dwelt  more  equally  upon  both  sides  of  the  picture.  Whatever 
supernatural  gifts  a  prophet  might  have,  he  was  still  and  in  all  things 
a  man.  He  was  subject  to  moods  like  others,  and  the  determination 
of  these  depended  upon  his  surroundings.  He  was  not  kept  by  the 
power  of  God  beyond  the  shadows  which  the  clouds  in  his  day  might 
cast;   and  we  may  safely  say  that  if  the  curses  which  are  to  follow 


126  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

disobedience  are  elaborated  and  dwelt  upon  much  more  than  the 
blessings  which  are  to  reward  obedience,  it  is  because  the  author  lived 
at  a  time  of  disobedience  and  revolt.  Obviously  his  contemporaries 
were  going  far  in  the  evil  way,  and  he  warns  them  with  intense  and 
eager  earnestness  against  the  dangers  they  are  so  recklessly  incurring. 

This  reasoning  is  so  inconsequeoitial  that  it  is  diificult  to 
see  how  any  man  of  discrimination  conld  be  led  into  it  except 
by  the  force  of  a  foregone  conclusion.  If,  as  is  here  freely 
admitted,  Moses  may  have  "prophetically  foretold  Israel's  dis- 
regard of  warnings,"  what  could  have  led  him  to  lay  moa-e 
emphasis  on  the  curses  to  come  than  on  the  blessings  ?  ISTothing 
except  the  fact  that  the  future  was  to  be^  just  what  he  foretold. 
And  if  he  had  "dwelt  more  equally  on  both  sides  of  the  pic- 
ture," he  wo'uld  thereby  have  proved  himself  a  false  prophet; 
for  the  history  of  Israel,  from  the  day  that  Moses  died  until 
their  final  dispersion  by  the  Komans,  contains  tenfold  more  on 
the  darker  side  of  the  picture  than  on  the  lighter.  But  Mr. 
Harper  accounts  for  this  difference  on  the  ground  that  the 
writer  was  "subject  to  moods"  like  others,  and  the  unfaith- 
fulness and  revolt  common  in  his  day  gave  form  to  his  predic- 
tions. This  is  to  contradict  what  had  just  been  admitted ;  for 
if  a  darker  future  was  predicted  than  history  was  to  verify, 
what  becomes  of  the  admission  that  Moses  may  have  propheti- 
cally foretold  what  he  did?  The  explanation  completelv 
ignores  prophetic  foresight.  And  this  is  unjust  to  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy,  whether  he  was  Moses  o^r  some  unkno^Avn  man 
in  the  time  of  Manasseh;  for  the  captivity  of  Israel  was  at 
that  time  still  in  the  future,  and  no  uninspired  man  could  have 
predicted  it  so  clearly  as  he  does,  unless,  indeed,  he  was  a  mere 
copyist  of  Hosea  and'  Isaiah,  with  which  he  has  never  been 
charged.  He  not  only  predicts  the  Babylonian  captivity,  which 
was  less  than  a  hundred  years  in  the  future,  but  he  predicts  even 
more  plainly  the  Koman  captivity  (xlix.  53),  which  was  yet 
seven  hundred  years  in  the  future.  Who  is  more  likely  to  have 
possessed  this  wonderful  predictive  power,  Moses  or  some 
unknown  writer  under  the  wicked  reign  of  Manasseh  ?  More- 
over, this  chapter  is  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  most  admirable 


TUh:  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  127 

specimens  of  oratory  to  be  found  in  tlie  wliole  Bible.      Driver 
goes  even  further,  and  says  of  it: 

The  chapter  forms  an  eloquent  and  impressive  peroration  to  the 
great  exposition  of  Israel's  duty  which  has  preceded:  and  in  sustained 
declamatory  power  it  stands  unrivaled  in  the  Old  Testament  (Com., 
303). 

Who  was  this  matchless  orator?  Did  ho  live  and  stir  the 
heart  of  the  nation  to  its  depths,  and  still  remain  absolutely 
unknown  to  his  generation,  though  living  and  writing  in  the 
very  center  of  it  ?  Or  was  it  really  Moses,  the  great  Egyptian 
scholar  and  Hebrew  lawgiver,  to  whom  it  is  expressly  ascribed  ? 
Surely  there  is  nothing  here  to  throw  doubt  on  the  Mosaic 
authorship,  but  everything  to  confinn  it. 

(2)  The  song  of  Moses.  The  copy  of  this  song  which  is 
preserved  in  the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  is  preceded 
by  three  historical  statements  respecting  it,  and  followed  by 
another. 

The  first  is  the  command  of  the  Lord  to  Moses:  "liow 
therefore  write  ye  this  song  for  you,  and  teach  thou  it  to  the 
children  of  Israel :  put  it  in  their  mouths,  that  this  song  may 
be  a  witness  for  me  against  the  children  of  Israel."  According 
to  this,  the  song  was  to  be  written  by  Moses;  he  was  to  teach 
the  people  to  sing  it,  and  it  was  to  be  preserved  as  God's  wit- 
ness against  them  in  any  future  departure  from  its  sentiments. 
The  last  thought  is  repeated  in  the  next  statement:  "It  shall 
come  to  pass,  when  many  evils  and  troubles  ar©  come  upon 
them,  that  this  song  shall  testify  before  them  as  a  witness;  for 
it  shall  not  be  forgotten  from  out  of  the  mouths  of  their  seed : 
for  I  know  their  imagination  which  they  go  about,  even  now, 
before  I  have  brought  them  into  the  land  which  I  sware." 
Here  is  the  additional  prediction  that  the  song  would  not  be 
forgotten;  and  this  is  generally  true  of  national  songs  such 
as  this  was  intended  to  be.  In  the  third  place,  it  is  formally 
stated  that  "Moses  wrote  this  song  the  same  da.y,  and  taught 
it  to  the  children  of  Israel"  (xxxi.  19,  21,  22).  The  fourth 
statement,  made  at  the  end  of  the  song,  is  this:  "And  Mose.3 
came  and  spake  all  the  words  of  this  song  in  the  ears  of  th@ 


128  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

people;  he,  and  Hoshea  the  son  of  Nun"  (xxxii.  •ii).  If  now, 
this  song,  which  stands  in  between  these  last  two  statements, 
was  actually  composed  as  is  here  declared,  and  copied  into  the 
place  which  it  now  occupies,  every  generation  of  Israel,  from 
the  time  of  their  first  apostasy  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  real- 
ised the  fulfillment  of  its  purpose  when  it  was  read  or  sung; 
and  the  generation  in  which  Ililkiah  brought  the  book  forth 
out  of  the  teanple  realized  it  as  keenly  as  any  that  preceded. 
But  if,  when  the  book  was  brought  forth  by  Ililkiah,  no  aged 
Israelite  had  been  able  to  remember  the  existence  of  the  song 
in  former  years,  or  could  remember  hearing  his  forefathers 
speak  of  it,  how  could  the  whole  nation  have  been  made  to  be- 
lieve that  it  had  existed  through  all  their  past  generations,  and 
had  testified,  as  God  said  it  would,  against  every  generation  that 
had  apostatized  ?  The  insertion  in  the  book  of  these  four  state- 
ments would  have  exposed  at  once  the  falsehoods  contained  in 
them,  and  would  have  brought  the  whole  book  into  contempt. 
Furthermore,  if  the  supposed  author  of  the  book,  in  the  reign 
of  Josiah  or  Manasseh,  had  wished  these  four  statements  to 
be  believed,  he  certainly  would  not  have  put.  such  indications 
of  date  in  the  song  itself  as  to  demonstrate  their  falsity.  We 
may  affirm,  then,  a  priori,  that  the  song  has  nothing  in  it  which 
the  Deuteronomist  considered  inconsistent  with  these  four 
statements. 

This  leads  us  to  the  song  itself.  The  first  four  verses  are  a 
magnificent  appeal  to  heaven  and  earth  to  hear  its  lofty  praises 
of  Jehovah.  Then  follows  at  verse  5  an  abrupt  transition  to 
these  words:  "They  have  dealt  corruptly  with  him,  they  are 
not  his  children,  it  is  their  blemish;  they  are  a  perverse  and 
crooked  generation."  The  generation  here  spoken  of  is  not 
designated.  The  words  are  applicable  to  almost  any  generation 
in  the  history  of  Israel,  and  they  were  not  inappropriate  to  the 
generation  to  which  Moses  was  bidding  farewell.  The  sentence 
is  so  framed,  indeed,  that  the  generation  to  which  Moses  recited 
the*  song  would  instinctively  apply  it  to  itself,  and  every  subse- 
quent sinful  generation  Avould  as  instinctively   do  the  same. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  129 

This  was  necessary  if  the  song  was  to  have  perpetually  ita 
intended  effect.  Xext  after  this  fifth  verse  comes  a  series  of 
questions  and  remarks  havino-  reference  to  events  which  had 
already  transpired  in  the  days  of  Moses,  and  reaching  forward 
to  the  time  wdien,  in  the  luxuries  of  the  promised  land,  he  says^ 
''But  Jeshurun  waxed  fat  and  kicked"  (verse  15).  From  this 
point  forward  the  people  are  spoken  of  alternately  in  the  third 
person  and  past  tense,  the  second  person  and  present  tense,  and 
in  the  future  tense.  But,  amid  this  variety  of  form,  every  sen- 
tenee  uttered  is  an  approj)riato  warning  to  every  generation 
that  might  be  a  sinful  one.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  in  the 
slightest  degree  a  late  date  for  the  composition,  except  the  fad. 
that  in  this  last  section  the  speaker  in  some  sentences  addresses 
a  future  generation  as  if  he  were  present  befoi-©  them.  This 
is  the  one  evidence  which  is  held  by  adverse  critics  as  proof  that 
the  song  is  post-Mosaic.  In  arguing  this  point,  Driver  makes 
a  series  of  statements  which  here  demand  our  attention: 
Nothing  in  the  poem  points  to  Moses  as  its  author. 

What  force  is  there  in  this  negation,  when  four  statements 

of  the  author  of  the  book  in  the  immediate  connection  declare 

that  he  was  the  author  ? 

The  period  of  the  Exodus,  and  of  the  occupation  of  Canaan,  lies  in 
the  distant  past  (7-12),  the  story  of  which  may  be  learned  by  the  poet's 
contemporaries  from  their  fathers  (7). 

The  correctness  of  this  statement  we  deny.  The  period  cov- 
ered by  the  verses  cited  was  in  the  recent  past  when  Moses  stood 
on  the  bank  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  occupation  of  Canaan  w^as 
not  included.      The  verses  referred  to  are  these : 

Consider  the  years  of  many  generations: 

Ask  thy  father,  and  he  will  shew  thee; 

Thine  elders,  and  they  will  tell  thee. 

When  the  Most  High  gave  to  the  nations  their  inheritance, 

"When  he  separated  the  children  of  men, 

He  set  the  bounds  of  the  peoples 

According  to  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel. 

For  Jehovah's  portion  is  his  people; 

Jacob  is  the  lot  of  his  inheritance. 

He  found  him  in  a  desert  land. 

And  in  the  waste  howling  wilderness; 

He  compassed  him  about,  he  cared  for  him, 


130  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

He  kept  him  as  the  apple  of  his  eye: 

As  an  eagle  that  stirreth  up  her  nest, 

That  fluttereth  over  her  young, 

He  spread  abroad  his  wings,  he  took  them, 

He  bare  them  on  his  pinions: 

Jehovah  alone  did  lead  him, 

And  there  was  no  strange  god  with  him. 

All  this  was  certainly  in  the  past  when  Moses  is  said  to  have 

spoken,  and  only  parts  of  it  were  in  the  distant  past.      The  past 

tense  is  continued  as  the  song  gradually  glides  into  the  future, 

and  the  state  of  apostasy  which  was  predicted  in  the  twenty- 

eighth  chapter  is  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  already  in  existence. 

On  this  feature  of  the  song,  as  we  have  remarked  above,  is  based 

the  inference  of  its  iDoet-Mosaic  origin.       Driver  says: 

To  suppose  that  the  poet  adopted  an  assumed  standpoint,  espe- 
cially one  between  Israel's  disaster  and  its  deliverance,  is  highly 
unnatural  (i&.,  345). 

And  Andrew^  Harper,  in  discussing  the  same  question,  says: 

Such  a  process  is  now  generally  regarded  as  not  impossible  indeed, 
but  unheard  of  in  the  history  of  prophecy  {Com.,  452,  note). 

To  say  that  it  is  unnatural,  is  irrelevant;  for  all  real  pre- 
diction is  unnatural,  and  is  guided  not  by  the  instincts  of  the 
prophet,  but  by  the  will  of  the  inspiring  Spirit.  And  to  say 
that  it  is  unheard  of  in  the  history  of  prophecy,  is  only  to  assert 
that  it  is  found  in  this  proiphecy  alone,  which  ^vould  not  be  a. 
very  strange  circumstanca  There  is  no  law  requiring  all 
proi^hecies  to  be  alike.  But  it  is  not  unheard  of  in  the  history 
of  prophecy.  A  striking  instance  is  found  in  so  familiar  a  pass- 
age as  the  second  Psahn.  There  the  rage  of  kings  and  peoples 
against  Jehovah  arrd_  his  anointed  is  depicted  as  if  it  were 
already  in  the  j)ast,  and  these  kings  are  addressed  in  the  second 
person  with  an  admonition  calling  on  them  to  be  wise  and  to 
serve  Jehovah  with  fear  lest  they  perish  when  his  wrath  shall 
be  kindled.  Harper  cites,  in  support  of  his  assertion,  the 
fact  that  Isa.  xl.-xlvi.  is  "now  ascribed  to  a  prophet  or  prophets 
of  the  exile"  (ib.,  353).  It  is  so  ascribed  by  the  class  of  critics 
to  which  he  belongs,  but  this  is  to  cite  a  disj)uted  conclusion  of 
these  critics  to  prove  the  correctness  of  another  which  is  also 
disputed.    If  conjectural  critics  are  allowed  this  privilege,  there 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  131 

is  nothing  which  they  can  not  prove  to  their  own  satisfaction, 
and  to  the  satisfaction  of  nobody  else.  It  is  safe  to  say,  too, 
that  if,  in  connection  with  any  one  prediction  in  this  part  of 
Isaiah,  there  were  four  explicit  statements  that  God  commanded 
Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz  to  write  it  and  read  it  to  the  people, 
and  canse  them  to  memorize  it,  and  that  Isaiah  did  this,  tJio 
most  radical  of  our  critics  would  hardly  have  the  hardihood  to 
deny  that  Isaiah  was  its  author.  But  such  is  the  exact  fact  in 
regard  to  this  song  of  Moses.  Furthermore,  in  this  very  por- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  there  are  predictions  in  which  this 
feature  that  Driver  says  is  unnatural,  and  Harjier  says  is 
unheard  of,  actually  occurs.  Take,  for  example,  xliv.  22,  23 ; 
and  let  it  be  granted,  for  argument's  sake,  that  it  was  written 
by  a  prophet  in  the  exile.  Writing  before  the  exile  is  ended, 
he  speaks  of  its  end  in  the  past  tense,  saying:  "O  Israel,  thoa 
shalt  not  be  forgotten  of  me.  I  have  blotted  out.,  as  a  thick 
cloud,  thy  transgressions,  and,  as  a  cloud,  thy  sins:  return 
unto  me;  for  I  have  redeemed  thee."  Then,  taking  his 
standpoint  at  the  close  of  this  redemption,  he  calls  upon 
all  nature  to  rejoice  wnth  him,  exclaiming:  "Sing,  0  ye 
heavens,  for  Jehovah  hath  done  it ;  shout,  ye  lower  parts 
of  the  earth ;  break  forth  into  singing,  ye  mountains,  O  forest, 
and  every  tree  therein :  for  Jehovah  hath  redeemed  Jacob,  and 
will  glorify  himself  in  Israel."  Again,  in  the  fifty-third  chap- 
ter, which,  in  spite  of  all  that  unbelieving  critics  have  said  to 
the  contrary,  is  a  prediction  resj)eoting  the  Messiah,  if  one  is 
to  be  found  anywhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  career  of  our 
suffering  and  dying  Lord  is  depicted  as  if  the  prophet  were 
standing  this  side  of  it,  and  looking  back ;  and  it  is  only  after 
his  "soul  has  been  made  an  offering  for  sin,"  that  the  prophet 
looks  forward  and  declares  that  "he  shall  see  his  seed,  and  shall 
prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  Jehovah  shall  prosper  in 
his  hands."  The  tw^o  principal  allegations,  then,  on  which 
critics  base  their  denial  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  this  song, 
are  untrue ;  and  with  these  their  contention  breaks  down.  This 
makes  it  unnecessary  to  cumber  these  pages  with  a  few  other 


r.i2  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OP 

inferences,  vague  and  without  force,  which  are  put  forward  by 
the  same  writers  in  the  sections  from  which  we  have  quoted. 
(See  Driver,  Com.,  344-348;  Harper,  Com.,  452-454.)  One 
more  remark  of  Harper  is  worthy  of  note  as  we  close  this  dis- 
cussion : 

The  contents  of  the  song  are  in  every  way  worthy  of  the  origin 
assigned  to  it;  and  higher  praise  than  this  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive (455). 

If  this  is  true,  how  is  it  that  the  literary  genius,  not  inferior 
to  Moseis,  from  wdiom  it  really  sprang,  lived  in  the  midst  of 
Jerusalem,  in  an  enlightened  age,  and  even  his  existence  has  not 
gone  into  the  history  of  the  times?      Is  this  credible? 

(3)   The  blessing  of  the  tribes.     This  poem,  occupying  the 

thirty-third  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  is  introduced  with  this 

statement :  "And  this  is  the  blessing  wherewith  Moses  the  man 

of  God  blessed  the  children  of  Israel  before  his  death."      The 

authorship  here  asserted  is  denied  by  the  critics  who  deny  the 

Mosaic  origin  of  the  book  as  a  whole.       The  groomds  of  this 

denial  are  fully  set  forth  by  Driver  in  his  comments  on  the 

chapter,  and  we  shall  consider  them  seriatim.      He  says: 

a.  It  is  incredible  that  verse  5  ("Moses  commanded  us  a  law") 
could  have  been  written  by  Moses. 

The  question  turns  upon  the  use  of  the  pronoun  "us;"  and 

it  is  to  be  determined  by  observing  whether  the  giving  of  the 

law  referred  to  was  so  far  in  the  past  that  Moses  might  include 

himself  among  those  to  whom  it  was  given.      If  we  believe  the 

record  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  it  was ;  for  it  had  been  given 

nearly  forty  years  j)revious.     The  poem  begins  with  the  words, 

"Jehovah  came  from  Sinai,"  which  is  a  direct  allusion  to  the 

e\^ent9  connected  with  that  mountain,  and  the  sentence  of  which 

the  w^ordg  in  question  are  the  beginning  is  this: 

Moses  commanded  iis  a  law 

And  inheritance  for  the  assembly  of  Jacob, 

And  he  was  king  in  Jeshurun, 

When  the  heads  of  the  people  were  gathered, 

All  the  tribes  of  Israel  together. 

The  context  shows  plainly  that  the  reference  is  to  the  law 
given  at  Mount  Sinai,  and  Moses,  thirty-nine  years  afterward, 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  133 

might  well  say  be  gave  it  to  us,  seeing  tliat  it  was  law 
for  liiiii  not  less  than  for  any  other  Israelite.  Moi'eover, 
the  song  was  written  to  be  sung  by  the  i>eople  after  the  death 
of  its  author.  It  is  then  altogether  credible  that  Moses  wrote 
this  passage. 

h.  Verses  27  and  28  look  back  to  the  conquest  of  Palestine  as  past 

The  verses  read  thus: 

The  eternal   God   is  thy   dwelling   place. 
And  underneath  are  the  everlasting  arms: 
And  he  thrust  out  the  enemy  from  before  thee, 
And  Israel  dwelleth  in  safety, 
The  fountain  of  Jacob  alone. 
In  a  land  of  corn  and  wine; 
Yea,  his  heavens  drop  down  dew. 

As  the  blessing  is  prophetic,  and  as  the  happy  state  here 
alluded  to  had  been  promised  to  Israel  again  and  again,  what 
is  to  hinder  the  thought  that  here  the  prophet  speaks  of  the 
near  future  as  if  it  were  already  present  ?  Nothing  is  more 
conuiion  in  prophecy. 

c.  Verses  12  and  19-23  describe  special  geographical  or  other  cir- 
cumstances (verse  21,  the  part  taken  by  God  in  the  conquest  of 
Canaan)  with  a  particularity  not  usual  when  the  prophets  are  describ- 
ing the  future. 

Suppose  that  they  do:  is  the  authorship  of  a  ^^I'ophecy  to 
be  denied  because  its  "particularity"  is  unusual  ?  This  would 
be  a  strange  rule  of  criticism.  And  what  are  these  geograph- 
ical allusions,  the  particularity  of  which  is  so  unusual  ?  In 
v^erse  12  it  is  said  of  Benjamin: 

The  beloved  of  Jehovah  shall  dwell  in  safety  by  him; 

He  covereth  him  all  the  day  long, 

And  he  dwelleth  between  his  shoulders. 

Instead  of  geographical  allusions,  there  is  nothing  here  but 
the  nearness  of  Benjamin  to  his  God  who  keeps  him  in  safety 
— a  matter  with  Avhicli  geography  has  nothing  to  do.  As  to 
the  other  verses  cited,  the  reader  can  see,  by  glancing  over 
them,  that  while  they  contain  allusions  to  the  mountain,  the 
sea,  the  sand,  the  west  and  the  south,  they  are  all  of  the  vaguest 
kind,  and  such  as  a  poet,  speaking  of  either  the  past  or  the 
future,  might  easily  make. 


134  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

d.  The  silence  respecting  Simeon  presupposes  a  period  when  (as 
certainly  was  not  the  case  till  after  the  Mosaic  period — Judg.  i.  3) 
the  tribe  was  absorbed  in  Judah. 

But  this  presupposition  could  not  account  for  the  silence 
about  Simeon ;  for  a  poet  writing  after  Simeon  disappeared  as 
a  tribe,  and  putting  his  poem  in  the  mouth  of  Moses,  would 
have  been  almost  certain  to  make  him  predict  the  fate  of  Sim- 
eon. He  could  have  had  no  reason  for  the  omission.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  Moses  wrote  the  blessing,  and  if  he  was  an  in- 
spired prophet,  it  may  have  appeared  to  the  Spirit  wise  not 
to  make  known  beforehand  the  sad  fate  awaiting  the  tribe,  but 
rather,  by  silence  with  reference  to  it,  to  leave  the  members 
of  the  tribe  and  of  all  tlie  others  in  wonder  as  to  the  reason, 
until  the  event  should  disclose  it.  Once  more  the  argument 
is  reversed  and  favors  the  Mosaic  authorship. 

Continuing  his  arginnent,  Driver  admits  that  the  blessing 
is  ancient,  more  so  than  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  de- 
cides that  its  most  probable  date  is  "shortly  after  the  rupture 
under  Jeroboam  I."     He  argues  the  question  thus: 

The  blessing  presupposes  a  period  when  Reuben  had  dwindled  in 
numbers  and  Simeon  had  ceased  to  exist  as  an  independent  tribe,  when 
the  tribe  of  Levi  was  warmly  respected  (verses  8-11),  when  the  temple 
had  been  built  and  was  regarded  with  affection  by  pious  worshipers  of 
Jehovah  (12),  when  Ephraim  was  flourishing  and  powerful  (13-17), 
and  Zebulon  and  Issachar  commercially  prosperous  (19).  Judah,  on 
the  contrary  (7),  would  seem  to  have  been  in  some  difficulty  or  need, 
and  (see  the  note)  severed  from  the  rest  of  Israel.  No  trace  of  idol- 
atry, or  of  Israel's  declension  from  its  ideal,  ...  no  word  of  censure 
or  reproach  (387). 

In  all  this  Driver  assumes  that  there  Is  no  predictive  ele- 
ment whatever  In  the  blessing,  and  thus  he  agrees  with  his  un- 
believing ^predecessors  in  this  criticism.  His  allegations,  so 
far  as  they  are  true,  agree  perfectly  with  the  Mosaic  date,  and 
positively  disagree  Avith  that  which  he  espouses.  For  instance, 
when  Moses  died,  Reuben  had  already  "dwindled  in  numbers," 
for  at  the  first  census  his  number  was  46,500,  and  at  the  sec- 
ond census,  thirty-nine  years  later,  it  was  only  43,730.  The 
allegation  about  Simeon  we  have  just  disposed  of  above.  As 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  it  was  as  warmly  respected  in  the  last 
days  of  Moses,  when  it  had  successfully  carried  the  ark  and 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  135 

the  tabernacle  tliroiigii  tlie  wilderness,  and  had  never  engaged 
in  any  rebellion,  as  it  ever  was  aftea*ward,  and  far  more  so 
than  in  the  days  of  Jeroboam,  when  all  the  Levites  living  in 
his  territory  were  forced  to  leave  their  hoines  and  retire  into 
Jndah  in  consequence  of  Jeroboam's  sin  with  the  golden 
calves  and  his  other  unlawful  practices.  For  the  statement 
that  the  temple  had  been  built,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evi- 
dence in  the  verse  referred  to  as  proof.     It  reads  thus: 

Of  Benjamin  he  said, 

The  beloved  of  Jehovah  shall  dwell  in  safety  by  him; 

He  covereth  him  all  the  day  long, 

And  he  dwelleth  between  his  shoulders. 

An  allusion  to  the  temple  has  to  be  read  into  this  verse: 
it  is  not  there.  Benjamin  could  be  beloved  of  Jehovah,  and 
dwell  in  safety  by  him ;  and  Jehovah  could  cover  him  all  the 
day,  and  dwell  betAveen  his  shoulders  as  well  before  the  temple 
was  built,  or  after  it  was  destroyed,  as  while  it  was  standing. 
Furthermore,  this  high  spiritual  encomium  on  Benjamin  was 
altogether  undeserved  at  any  long  period  after  the  death  of 
Moses.  We  have  only  to  think  of  the  affair  at  Gibeali,  of 
King  Saul,  of  Shimei,  of  Sheba's  rebellion,  and  of  the  insig- 
nificance of  Benjamin  at  the  time  of  Jeroboam's  defection, 
in  order  to  realize  how  shocking  w^ould  be  the  application  of 
this  blessing  to  Benjamin  in  the  later  history. 

jS^ext  we  are  told  that  the  blessing  was  written  "wh.en 
Ephraim  was  flourishing  and  jwwerful,  and  Zebulon  and  Issa- 
char  commercially  prosperous."  But  all  that  is  said  of  these 
tliree  tribes  is  spoken  in  the  future  tense.  It  is  prophecy  and 
not  history,  though  the  argument  assumes  that  it  is  the  latter. 
Moreover,  though  Ephraim  was  certainly  prosperous  and  pow- 
erful under  the  reign  of  Jeroboam,  it  was  no  less  so  in  the 
reigns  of  Saul,  David  and  Solomon.  Indeed,  when  Moses  died, 
the  combined  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  which  are  both 
included  in  this  blessing,  outnumbered  every  other  tribe  by 
many  thousands.  And  as  to  the  commercial  prosperity  of  Zeb- 
ulon and  Issachar,  there  is  not  a  word  said  about  it  in  the  his- 


136  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

torj  of  Jeroboam's  redgn.  It  exists  onlv  in  the  imagination 
of  the  critic. 

Finally,  our  author  says  that  the  blessing  points  to  ''no 
trace  of  idolatry,  or  of  Israel's  declension  from  its  ideal  .  .  . 
no  word  of  censure  oi*  reproach."  This  is  true;  and  the  state- 
ment of  it  is  on  the  critic's  part  suicidal;  for  in  the  period 
of  Jeroboam  I.  the  one  sensation  of  the  time  was  the  calf-wor- 
ship set  up  by  Jeroboam,  and  his  decree  that  his  subjects 
should  no  long'er  go  to  Jerusalem  to  worship.  This  is  the  sin 
the  references  to  which  ring  like  a  chorus  through  all  the  sub- 
sequent chapters  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  till  the  fall  of  Israel, 
styled  "the  sin  which  Jeroboam  the  son  of  iN^ebat  taught  Israel 
to  sin."  Froan  Professor  Driver's  own  point  of  view  there 
could  not  be  a  more  complete  demonstration,  than  is  here  pre»- 
sented,  that  the  date  which  he  advocates  is  not  the  true  one. 
Indeed,  there  is  not  a  period  in  the  history  of  Israel,  from 
the  death  of  Moses  to  that  of  Josiah,  to  which  this  last  char- 
acteristic of  the  blessing  could  be  fully  applied.  To  the  full 
extent  that  it  has  any  force  as  evidence,  it  is  proof  that  the 
blessing  came  from  the  lips  of  Moses. 

As  to  Judah,  he  was  not,  in  the  time  of  Jeroboam,  "severed 
from  the  rest  of  Israel,"  foT  he  had  Benjamin  with  him,  and 
he  was  not  "in  some  difficulty  or  need ;"  on  the  contrary,  he 
raised  a  powerful  army  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  back  into 
subjection  the  tribes  in  rebellion  under  Jeroboam,  and  was 
turned  back  from  the  attempt  only  by  the  command  of  God 
through  the  prophet  Shemaiah.  The  words  of  the  blessing 
pronounced  on  Judah  are  these: 

Hear,  Jehovah,  the  roice  of  Judah, 

And  bring  him  in  unto  his  people: 

With  his  hands  he  contended  for  himself; 

And  thou  shalt  be  an  help  against  his  adversaries. 

The  early  history  of  the  patriarch  Judah  himself  supplies 
the  facts  here  alluded  to.  After  his  father  and  his  brethren 
returned  from  Padan-aram,  he  separated  himself  from  his 
brethren,  went  down  to  Adullam,  and  united  in  business  with 
a  Canaanite  named  Hirah,  married  there,   and  resided  there 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  137 

until  after  tho  birth  of  his  two  grandsons  Perez  and  Zerah 
(Gen.  xxxviii.  1-30). 

We  now  have  before  lis  the  grounds  on  which  this  learned 
commentator  would  have  us  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  blessing  of  the  tribes,  and  we  have  seen  that  every  one  of 
them  is  without  force  in  that  direction,  while  the  majority  of 
thean  have  great  force  in  favor  of  the  opposite  conclusion. 

§7.  Evidence  in  the  Histokical  Books. 

In  this  section  we  shall  follow  chiefly  the  line  of  argu- 
ment pursued  by  W.  Robertson  Smith.  Our  quotations,  ex- 
cept when  otherwise  designated,  shall  be  from  his  Old  Tes- 
tament in  the  Jewish  Church. 

1.  Joshua  and  Chronicles  Set  Aside.  Our  author,  In  com- 
mon with  all  of  the  destructive  critics,  while  arguing  fro^m 
the  historical  books,  deliberately  sets  aside,  as  unwo'rthy  of 
credence,  the  Book  of  Joshua,  which  covers  the  earliest  period 
after  Moses,  and  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  which  cover  the 
whole  historic  period  from  the  death  of  King  Saul  to  the 
close  of  the  exile.  With  respect  to  the  former,  Professor 
Smith  says: 

In  working  out  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  shall  confine  your  atten- 
tion in  the  first  instance  to  the  books  earlier  than  the  time  of  Ezra, 
and  in  particular  to  the  histories  in  the  "earlier  prophets,"  from  Judges 
to  II.  Kings.  I  exclude  the  Book  of  Joshua  because  it  in  all  its 
parts  hangs  closely  together  with  the  Pentateuch.  The  difficulties 
which  it  presents  are  identical  with  those  of  the  books  of  Moses,  and 
can  only  be  explained  in  connection  with  the  critical  analysis  of  the 
law  (235). 

The  reason  given  for  this  exclusion  is  vague  enough.  The 
book  does  hang  closely  together  with  the  Pentateuch,  and  this 
is  a  necessity  if  its  records  are  true,  seeing  that  it  describes 
the  introduction  into  Canaan  of  the  people  to  whom  the  laws 
in  the  preceding  books  had  professedly  been  given,  and  their 
experiences  under  these  laws  through  one  generation.  But 
why  this  should  be  a  reason  for  rejecting  its  testimony  in 
respect  to  the  existence  of  these  laws,  it  seems  that  none  but 
a  critic  with  a  foregone  conclusion  can  see.     Principal  Cave 


138  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

very  justly  pronounced  it  "an  exclusion  wliicli  looks  very  sin- 
gularly like  shelving,  from  tlie  exigency  of  theory,  an  awk- 
ward series  of  facts  which  renders  the  theory  suspect"  (/. 
0.  T.,  282).  We  will  show,  under  a  later  section,  that  if  this 
"awkward  series  of  facts"  actually  occurred,  the  theory  in 
question,  both  as  to  the  law  in  Deuteronomy,  and  that  in  tlie 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  is  absolutely  falsified.  The 
exclusion  of  the  testimony  of  this  book  is  an  admission,  to 
say  the  least,  that  it  furnishes  no  evideoice  in  favor  of  the 
theory. 

Of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  our  author  has  this  to  say : 

The  tendency  of  the  Chronicler  to  assume  that  the  institutions  of 
his  own  age  existed  under  the  old  kingdom  makes  his  narrative  useless 
for  the  purpose  now  in  hand,  where  we  are  expressly  concerned  with 
the  differences  between  ancient  and  modern  usage  (235)." 

The  words  ''useless  for  the  purpose  now  in  hand"  are  well 
chosen;  for  to  one  who  is  aiming  to  show  differences  between 
ancient  and  modem  usage,  a  book  which  represents  modern 
usage  as  being  the  same  with  ancient  usage  is,  of  course,  "use*- 
less  for  the  purpose  in  hand."  It  would  seem,  however,  that 
to  a  writer  who  is  seeking  to  learn  whether  such  differences 
really  exist  or  not,  such  a  book  is  the  very  one  he  would  find 
most  useful,  provided  there  are  no  other  grounds  for  impeach- 
ing its  testimony. 

Here  a  footnote  which  I  find  in  Principles    of    Biblical 

Criticism,  by  J.  J.  Lias  (p.  G5),  is  in  point: 

De  "Wette  lets  us  into  the  secret  of  this  hostility  to  Chronicles. 
"The  whole  Jewish  history,"  he  says,  "on  its  most  interesting  and 
important   side,   that   of   religion   and   the    manner   of   observing   the 


'*  The  destructive  critics  have  no  mercy  on  the  Chronicler.  Kuenen 
says:  "It  is  quite  certain  now  that  about  the  year  300  B.  C,  or  still 
later,  he  rewrote  the  history  of  Israel  before  the  exile  in  a  sacerdotal 
spirit,  and,  in  so  doing,  violated  historical  truth  throughout"  {Rel.  of 
Israel,  I.  321).  If  he  did  worse  in  this  respect,  or  one-tenth  as  bad 
as  our  modern  scientific  critics  have  done,  the  Lord  have  mercy  on 
him.  Wellhausen,  among  a  number  of  severe  remarks  about  him,  says: 
"One  might  as  well  try  to  hear  the  grass  growing  as  attempt  to  de- 
rive from  such  a  source  as  this  a  historical  knowledge  of  ancient  Is- 
rael" (quoted  by  Alexander  Stewart,  Lex  M.,  400).  And  one  might 
as  well  attempt  to  smell  the  color  of  the  grass  as  to  derive  such  knowl- 
edge from  such  sources  as  the  writings  of  Wellhausen. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  139 

worship  of  God,  assumes  quite  a  different  shape  when  the  accounts  in 
Chronicles  have  been  set  aside."  So  also:  "A  multitude  of  troublesome 
proofs,  difficult  to  deal  with,  of  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  books  in 
earlier  times,  vanish  altogether."  It  is  with  De  Wette  that  all  these 
fierce  attacks  on  Chronicles  originate.  And  with  charming  naivete 
he  has  told  us  the  reason. 

Robertson  Smith,  and  his  English  and  Amei'lcan  follow- 
ers, do  not  venture  to  give  De  Wetto's  reason  for  accepting 
his  conclusion,  but  the  one  which  thej  do  give  is  no  reason 
at  all,  and  this  suggests  the  Inevitable  suspicion  that  his  rea- 
son is  really  theirs. 

2.  In  the  Book  of  Xehemiah.  We  shall  now  take  up,  in 
an  order  of  our  own,  the  several  passages  in  the  historical 
books  by  which  our  autho'r  seeks  to  prove  that  the  Pentateuchal 
law  was  not  known  or  enforced  until  the  time  of  Ezra.  He 
admits  freely  that  the  law  in  the  hands  of  Ezra  was  "prac- 
tically identical  -with  our  present  Hebrew  Pentateuch,"  and 
he  affirms  that  from  that  time  forward  it  was  "the  municipal 
and  religious  code  of  Israel"  (43).-^^  This  fact  should  be 
distinctly  noted  and  remembc'red  by  students  of  criticism. 
But  he  makes  use  of  a  passage  in  Nehemiah  to  prove  that 
this  had  not  been  the  case  previously.     He  says: 

The  people  in  their  confession  very  distinctly  state  that  their  law 
had  not  been  observed  by  their  ancestors,  or  their  rulers,  or  their 
priests,  up  to  that  time  (Neh.  ix.  34) ;  and  in  particular  it  is  men- 
tioned that  the  feast  of  tabernacles  had  never  been  observed  with  the 
ceremonial  prescribed  in  the  law  from  the  time  that  the  Israelites 
occupied  Canaan  under  Joshua  (Neh.  viii.  17). 

What  is  hei"e  said  of  the  confession  made  by  the  people, 
if  it  has  any  bearing  upon  the  question  at  issue,  is  intended 
to  make  the  impression  that  their  ancestors  had  not  kept  the 
law  because  they  did  not  have  it.  But  the  opposite  is  the 
truth ;  for  their  words  are :  "Neither  have  our  kings,  our 
princes,  our  priests,  nor  our  fathers  kept  thy  law,  nor  heark- 
ened unto  thv  commandments  and  thv  testimonies  wherewitTi 


"This  is  conceded  even  by  the  radicals.  Wellhausen  says:  "Sub- 
stantially at  least,  Ezra's  law-book,  in  the  form  in  which  it  became 
the  Magna  Charta  of  Judaism  in  or  about  the  year  444,  must  be  re- 
garded as  practically  identical  with  our  Pentateuch,  although  many 
minor  amendments  and  very  considerable  additions  may  have  been 
made  at  a  later  date"   (Art.  "Israel,"  Encyc.  Brit.,  p.  428,  c.  2), 


140  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

thou  didst,  testify  against  them."  How  could  the  law 
testify  against  them,  if  they  did  not  have  it?  They  had  the 
law  then,  hut  had  not  kept  it;  and  by  "the  law"  Is  meant 
the  law  then  in  the  hands  of  Ezra,  from  which  he  had 
been  reading,  and  Professor  Smith  admits,  as  we  ha.ve  just 
seen,  that  it  was  "practically  our  j)resent  Hebrew  Pentateuch." 
!^roreover,  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  prayer  (verses  13,  14), 
the  Levites  who  are  praying,  not  the  whole  people,  as  Smith 
seems  to  think,  declare  that  God  had  given  this  law,  with  its 
commandments  and  statutes,  at  Mount  Sinai,  and  by  the  hand 
of  his  servant  Moses.  In  their  confession  of  sins,  they  con- 
fess precisely  what  we  now  read  in  their  sacred  books  from 
their  owti  day  back  to  the  beginning.  This  prayer,  which  fills 
the  ninth  chapter  of  iN'ehemiah,  is  an  exhibition  of  most  re- 
markable historical  knowledge  on  the  part  of  those  who  offered 
it;  for  it  begins  with  the  call  of  Abraham,  and  it  tonches,  in 
passing  down  the  stream  of  time,  all  the  salient  features  of 
Israel's  history  without  a  break  in  the  chronology,  or  a  sin- 
gle mistake  in  the  facts.  As  you  read  it  yon  see  that  theiir 
memories  pass  from  one  book  to  another  in  such  a  manner  as 
is  most  rare  even  in  these  days  of  printed  Bibles.  Xot  one 
preacher  or  priest  in  a  thousand  could,  to  this  day,  in  an  ex- 
tempore prayer,  do  the  same.  They  knew  what  they  say 
about  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  about  the  way  in  which  their 
fathers  had  disobeyed  it,  because  they  had  committed  to  mem- 
OYj  the  facts  from  the  same  books  which  we  now  read.  The 
agreement  could  not  otherwise  be  so  perfect. 

Professor  Smith  deals  unfairly  also  with  the  other  pass- 
age which  he  cites.  Instead  of  saying  that  the  feast  of  tab- 
ernacles "had  never  been  observed  with  the  ceremonial  pre- 
scribed by  the  law  from  the  time  that  Israel  occuj^ied  Canaan 
under  Joshua,"  they  speak  of  only  one  part  of  the  ceremonial, 
that  of  living  in  booths  made  of  the  boughs  of  trees;  and 
say  that  this  had  not  been  observed  before  since  the  days  of 
^Jasliua,  not  "from  the  time  that  Israel  occupied  Canaan  un- 
der Joshua."     There  is  a  difference  here  of  at  least  twenty- 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  141 

five  years.  It  is  implied  tliat  during  those  twenty-five  years 
they  did  dwell  in  booths  during  tliis  feast,  hut  had  not  done 
so  since.  Nehemiah  speaks  of  this  as  an  infraction  of  the 
law,  which  it  could  not  have  been  if  this  law  had  not  existed 
from  the  days  of  Joshua.  Furthermore,  the  words  used  imply 
that  in  the  days  of  Joshua  this  ceremonial  had  been  observed ; 
for  otherwise  the  remark  that  it  had  not  been  since  then  would 
have  no  force.  A  little  thought  will  show  that  while  there 
was  no  adequate  excuse  for  this  neglect,  there  was  an  exten- 
uation for  it.  The  number  of  green  boughs  which  would  be 
necessary  every  fall  for  the  whole  male  population  of  Israel 
to  build  booths  would  soon  strip  all  of  the  trees  in  the  vicinity 
of  Jerusalem  of  the  boughs  which  they  could  spare  and  still 
live;  and  the  fear  of  thus  denuding  and  destroying  fruit  and 
forest  trees  alike,  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  neglect.  It  fur- 
nishes a  much  more  j^lausible  excuse  for  this  omission  than 
Israel  could  plead  for  many  others  of  which  they  were  guilty. 
And  even  now  they  were  compelled,  after  the  surrounding 
trees  had  enjoyed  an  uninterrupted  growth  during  the  whole 
period  of  the  captivity,  to  strip  olive-trees,  both  tame  and 
wild,  and  palm-trees,  as  well  as  those  called  "thick  trees." 

3.  In  the  Book  of  Judges.  Robertson  Smith  is  very  rad- 
ical in  his  position  on  the  evidence  of  this  book,  and  he  argnes 
it  with  a  persistency  equaled  only  by  his  inaccuracy  in  rep- 
resenting the  facts.     In  oj^ening  the  discussion,  he  says : 

We  need  not  dwell  on  the  fact  that  the  whole  religion  of  the  time 
of  the  Judges  was  Levitically  false.  .  .  .  Acts  of  true  worship,  which 
Jehovah  accepted  as  the  tokens  of  a  penitent  heart,  and  answered  by 
deeds  of  deliverance,  were  habitually  associated  with  illegal  sanctu- 
aries (0.  T.,  267). 

In  support  of  these  assertions  he  presents  five  specifications : 

(1)  At  Bochim  the  people  wept  at  God's  rebuke,  and  sacrificed 
to  the  Lord  (Judg.  ii.  5). 

We  have  already  answered,  in  another  connection,  that  the 
location  of  Bochim  is  not  known,  that  it  may  have  been  hard 
hx  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  the  sacrifice  was  not  offered  on  the  altar  made 
bv  Moses. 


142  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

(3)  Deborah  and  Barak  opened  their  campaign  at  the  sanctuary 
ot  Kadesh. 

There  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  text  to  suppoi-t  this  assertion, 
neither  is  there  the  slightest  hint  that  such  a  sanctuary  ever 
existed.  This  is  an  instance  of  manufacturing  Scripture. 
Let  the  reader  search  the  account  in  Judges  iv.,  and  Deborah's 
song  in  chapter  v.,  to  verify  this  statement 

(3)  Jehovah  himself  commanded  Gideon  to  build  an  altar  and  do 
sacrifice  at  Ophrah,  and  this  sanctuary  still  existed  in  the  days  of  the 
historian  (Judg.  vi.  24). 

But  if  Jehovah  commanded  it,  this  made  it  lawful.  More- 
over, the  occasion  of  this  command,  which  was  to  rebuke  the 
idolatry  of  the  people  of  Ophrah,  by  tearing  down  their  altar 
of  Baal,  and  defiantly  building  an  altar  to  Jehovah  in  its 
place,  justified  the  irregularity.  This  end  would  not  have 
been  accomplished  by  sending  Gideon  to  Shiloh  with  his  offer- 
ing. In  the  statement  that  "this  sanctuary  still  existed  in  the 
days  of  the  historian,"  Smith  uses  the  word  "sanctuary"  where 
the  text  says  "this  altar."  The  statement  of  the  text  was  sug- 
gested by  the  fact  that  though  the  people  of  Ophrah  were 
so  enraged  when  the  altar  was  built  that  they  wanted  to  kill 
the  man  who  tore  down  Baal's  altar  and  erected  this,  yet  they 
let  it  stand.  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  that  it  became 
a  sanctuary;  so  here  again  our  critic  manufactures  evidemca 

(4)  Jephthah  spake  all  his  words  "before  the  Lord"  at  Mizpah  or 
Ramoth-Gilead,  the  ancient  sanctuary  of  Jacob,  before  he  went  forth 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  to  overthrow  the  Ammonites  (Judg.  xi.  11,  29; 
Gen.  xxxi.  45,  seq.). 

But  neither  Mizpah  nor  Ramoth-Gilead  ever  was  a  "sanc- 
tuary of  Jacob."  He  was  overtaken  at  Mizpah  by  Lahan ;  he 
erected  a  rude  monument  there  to  mark  a  spot  beyond  which 
neither  he  nor  Laban  should  ever  pass  to  harm  the  other, 
and  he  offered  a  sacrifice  on  the  occasion ;  but  he  never  visited 
the  spot  again,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  styling 
it  a  sanctuary.  Moreover,  Jephthah  could  speak  all  his  words 
"before  the  Lord,"  by  calling  the  Lord  to  witnc'ss  what  he 
said,  without  going  to  a  sanctuary  for  the  purpose. 

(5)  Jephthah's  vow  before  the  campaign  was  a  vow  to  do  sacrifice 
at  Mizpah. 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  143 

It  ivas  not.  The  place  where  the  sacrilicc  was  to  be  of- 
fered is  not  mentioned.  He  may  have  intended,  so  far  as 
the  text  cither  affirms  or  intimates,  to  offer  it  at  Shiloh,  or 
at  any  other  place  which  an  outlaw  such  as  he  had  been  might 
select. 

Here  are  now  the  five  sijecifications  by  which  we  are  to 
be  convinced  that  "^the  whole  religion  of  the  time  of  the 
Judges  was  Levitically  false,  and  that  acts  of  true  worship 
were  habitually  associated  with  illegal  sanctuaries."  Sup- 
pose that  all  of  the  five  were  established  as  instances  in  point, 
what  would  they  prove  ?  Simply,  that  within  a  period  of 
three  centuries  acceptable  worship  was  offered  three  times 
at  illegal  sanctuaries.  And  how  far  would  this  go  toward 
proving  that  this  was  habitual  in  these  three  centuries?  What 
proof  would  it  furnish  that  "the  whole  religion  of  the  time 
was  Levitically  false"  ?  Were  Deborah  and  Barak  and  Gideon 
and  Jephthah  the  only  persoiis  who  worshiped  God  with  true 
worship  in  that  three  hundred  years  ?  What  was  going  on  at 
Shiloh,  where  the  tabernacle  stood  from  the  days  of  Joshua 
till  the  death  of  Eli,  and  whither  some  true  men  like  Elkanah 
were  even  at  the  last  date  still  going  up  yearly  with  their 
families  and  their  victims  ?  How  shall  we  characterize  such 
perversity  in  manufacturing  evidence? 

But  our  disciple  of  Wellhausen  perseveres  in  his  line  of 

argmnent  and  w^e  must  follow  him  still  further.     He  says: 

All  God's  acts  of  grace  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  all  his 
calls  to  repentance,  and  all  the  ways  in  which  he  appears  from  time 
to  time  to  support  his  people,  and  to  show  himself  their  living  God, 
ready  to  forgive  in  spite  of  their  disobedience,  are  connected  witli 
this  same  local  worship   (267). 

In  this  statement  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth.  The  only 
specifications  given  to  support  it,  or  that  can  be  given,  are 
the  five  just  disposed  of  above. 

Again  he  says  of  this  period  of  the  Judges : 

The  call  to  repentance  is  never  a  call  to  put  aside  the  local  sanc- 
tuaries and  worship  only  before  the  ark  of  Shiloh   (i&.). 

This  is  true;  and  it  is  true  because  there  were  no  such 
sanctuaries  then  in  existence.     The  calls  to  repentance  were 


144  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

calls  ill  reference  to  the  illegal  worship  of  the  gods  of  Canaan. 
This  is  true  in  every  instance,  as  any  reader  of  the  book  may 
see  for  himself.  If  any  one  doubts  it,  he  can  test  the  state- 
ment in  an  hour  by  glancing  through  the  Book  of  Judges. 
And  in  thus  calling  the  people  back  from  heathen  worship, 
they  were  called  to  worship  at  Shiloh  just  as  surely  as  the 
true  worship  was  still  conducted  there,  of  which  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt. 

4.  The  Ritual  at  Shiloh.  We  next  consider  what  our 
critic  has  to  say  about  tlie  service  at  Shiloh.  He  admits  that 
throughout  the  period  of  Judg-es  "the  ark  was  settled  at  Shi- 
loh," and  that  "a  legitimate  priesthood  ministered  before  it." 
But  he  declares  that  "the  ritual  was  not  that  of  the  Levitical 
law"  (268).  In  his  effort  to  make  good  his  declaration,  the 
nimiber  of  alleged  discrepancies  between  the  two  rituals  which 
he  tries  to  exhibit,  is  not  so  great  as  his  own  misrepresenta- 
tioflis  of  the  Shiloh  ritual.     He  first  says :     - 

Shiloh  was  visited  by  pilgrims  from  the  surrounding  country  of 
Ephraim,  not  three  times  a  year  according  to  the  Pentateuchal  law,  but 
at  an  annual  feast  (i&.)- 

The  only  foundation  for  this  statement  is  the  case  of  El- 
kanah,  described  in  the  first  chapter  of  I.  Samuel.  It  so  hap- 
pens that  Elkanah  came  from  the  country  of  Ephraim,  but 
how  does  Professoir  Smith  know  that  the  "pilgrims"  who  came 
thither  were  from  the  same  tribe?  He  says  they  came  at  "an 
annual  feast"  But  this  is  not  authorized  by  the  text.  Elka- 
nah's  annual  visit  was  not  to  attend  one  of  the  annual  feasts, 
but,  as  the  text  says,  "to  worship  and  to  sacrifice  to  Jehovah 
of  hosts  in  Shiloh."  You  could  not  know  from  the  text  that 
any  other  than  Elkanah's  own  family  were  present  on  the  oo 
casion  of  any  of  his  visits  (see  i.  3,  21,  24,  25).  The  asser- 
tion that  the  "pilgrims"  did  not  go  up  "three  times  a  year 
according  to  the  Pentateuchal  law,"  is  groundless,  Eor  aught 
that  Professor  Smith  knew  when  he  penned  this,  or  could  know, 
Elkanah  himself  may  have  gone  to  the  annual  feasts  in 
addition  to  going  for  his  own  family  devotions.  The  annu- 
al feasts,   according  to  the  Pentateuchal  law,  were  occasions 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  145 

for  tliG  national  celebration  of  great  events.  Our  critic  has 
here  committed  tJie  blunder  of  taking  tlie  annual  visits  of  on© 
devout  man  to  worship  God  with  his  family,  as  proof  of 
what  Israel  as  a  people  did  or  did  not,  do ;  and  he  has  selected 
his  example  from  the  time  when,  according  to  the  teixt  itself, 
the  people  in  general  had  been  forced  to  ''abhor  the  offering 
of  Jehovah"  by  the  disgraceful  conduct  of  the  priests.  By  this 
state  of  degeneracy  and  corruption  he  would  have  us  judge 
the  service  at  Shiloh  throughout  the  previous  three  hundred 
years. 

We  are  next  told,  with  reference  to  the  so-called  "annual 
feast"  which  Elkanah  attended,  that  "this  appears  to  have  been 
a  vintage  feast,  like  the  Pentateuchal  feast  of  tabernacles;  for 
is  was  accompanied  by  dances  in  the  vineyards  ( Judg.  xxi.  21)  ; 
and,  according  to  I.  Sam.  i.  20,  21,  it  took  place  when  the  nmv 
year  came  in ;  that  is,  the  close  of  the  agricultural  year,  which 
ended  with  the  ingathering  of  the  vintage  (Ex.  xxxiv,  22)." 
Here,  again,  the  learned  professor  commits  blunder  after 
blunder.  He  has  the  girls  of  Judg.  xxi.  21  dancing  in  tJie 
vineyards,  the  worst  place  on  dry  ground  that  they  could  find 
to  dance  in,  whereas  the  text  has  the  young  men  who  were  to 
steal  the  girls,  hid  in  the  vineyards.  He  supposes  the  feast  to 
be  that  of  the  tabernacles  held  "at  the  close  of  tlie  year  which 
ended  with  the  ingathering  of  the  vintage,"  forgetting  that  in 
Palestine  the  grapes  ripen  in  July,  and  the  vintage  follows 
immediately,  while  it  is  the  olive  gathering,  and  not  the  vin- 
tage, which  ends  the  agricultural  year.  At  that  time  the  vines 
have  dropped  their  leaves,  and  the  vineyards  would  not  afford 
a  hiding-place  for  the  young  men  who  stole  the  dancing  girls. 
This  incident  connects  far  more  closely  with  tbe  feast  of  Pen- 
tecost, when  the  vines  were  in  full  leaf,  than  with  the  feast  of 
tabernacles,  when  they  were  bare.-^^  Again,  he  has  the  year 
closing  at  the  time  of  Samuel's  birth,  "according  to  the  correct 
rendering  of  1.  Sam.  i.  20,  21."      As  rendered  in  the  Revised 


"Here   Smith   was   misled  by  Kuenen,  who  expresses  the   same 
idea  in  Religion  of  Israel,  II.  27. 


146  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

Ver&iou,  tJiat  text  reads,  ''And  it  came  to  pass,  when  tlie  time 
was  come  about,  that  Hannah  conceived  and  bare  a  son."  The 
clause,  "when  the  time  was  come  about,"  means  the  time  for 
Hannah  to  conceive  and  bear  a  son.  The  "correct  rendering," 
which  Smith  suggests,  is,  "when  the  new  year  came^"  Sup- 
pose we  adopt  it ;  what  is  the  result  ?  Only  this :  "It  came  to 
pass,  when  the  new  year  came  in,  that  Hannah  conceived  and 
bare  a  son."  And  how  does  this  show  that  the  feast  at  which 
Hannah  prayed  for  a  son,  was  the  feast  of  tabernacles  ?  A 
woman  may  Y>vaj  for  a  son  on  the  fourth  of  July,  or  any  day 
of  any  month,  and  still  not  conceive  and  bear  him  till  after 
the  new  year  coanes  in.  Finally,  the  blunder  is  committed  of 
quoting  Ex.  xxxiv.  22,  in  support  of  the  assertion  that  the 
agricultural  year  ended  wiih  "the  ingathering  of  the  vintage;" 
whereas  the  passage  says  nothing  about  the  vintage.  It  says, 
"Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  weeiks,  even  the  firstfruits  of 
■wheat  harvest,  and  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the  end  of  the 
year."  Professor  Smith  could  not  have  been  ignorant,  for  he 
was  familiar  with  Palestine  both  from  reading  and  from 
residing  in  it,  that  the  last  ingathering  of  the  year  is  not  that 
of  the  grapes,  but,  as  we  have  said  above,  that  of  the  olives. 
!N^ext  to  the  wheat  harvest  this  is  the  most  valuable  harvest  of 
the  year. 

Professoi"  Smith  asserts  that  the  service  at  Shiloh  was  a 
local  affair,  attended  only  by  "pilgrims  from  the  surround- 
ing country  of  Ephraim."  If  he  had  said  this  with  reference 
to  tke  time  of  Hannah's  prayer,  it  is  possible  that  he  might 
have  been  correct;  for  this  was  the  time  at  which  the  officia- 
ting priests  had,  by  their  covetous  and  beastly  conduct,  dis- 
gusted the  people  with  the  offerings  of  Jehovah.  It  was  when 
Jehovah  himself  was  on  the  eve  of  providentially  destroying 
the  whole  family  of  Eli  and  divorcing  the  ark  of  his  covenant 
from  the  tabexnacle  which  they  had  defiled.  But  as  a  repre-- 
sentation  of  the  service  at  Shiloh  as  a  whole,  running  back  as 
it  did  through  nearly  three  centuries,  it  is  as  false  as  it  can 
be,  and  the  passage  in  Judges  which  he  cites,  when  the  dancing 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  147 

girls  ^^•'cre  stolen  by  the  yoaing  Benjamite«,  is  proof  of  this; 
for  at  the  close  of  the  incident  it  is  said,  ''The  children  of 
Israel  departed  tJience  at  tliat  time,  every  man  to  his  tribe  and 
to  his  family,  and  they  went  out  thence  every  man  to  his  inher- 
itance" (Jndg.  xxi.  24).  This  was  while  Phinehas  was  still 
alive  (xx.  27),  and  it  was  therefore  very  soon  after  the  death 
of  Joshua ;  and  it  shows  that  then  the  people  from  the  tribes 
in  general  cajne  up  to  Shiloh  to  worship.  Why  judge  the 
whole  period  from  what  we  read  at  the  end  of  it,  rather  than 
by  the  order  established  at  the  beginning?  Was  it  because 
these  facts  were  not  known  to  the  critic,  or  was  it  because 
they  were  very  conveniently  ignored  ? 

Professor  Smith  next  points  out  in  detail  the  evidences 
that  the  ritual  of  Shiloh  was  not  that  of  the  Levitical  law. 
He  says  (1)  that — 

Eli's  sons  would  not  burn  the  fat  of  the  sacrifice  till  they  had 
procured  a  portion  of  uncooked  meat  (I.  Sam.  ii.  12,  seq.,  Revised 
"Version,  margin).  Under  the  Levitical  ordinance  this  was  perfectly 
regular;  the  worshiper  handed  over  the  priest's  portion  of  the  flesh 
along  with  the  fat,  and  part  of  the  altar  ceremony  was  to  wave  it 
before  Jehovah  (Lev.  vii.  30,  seq.,  x.  15).  But  at  Shiloh  the  claim 
was  viewed  as  illegal  and  highly  wicked    (0.  T.,  269). 

There  is  just  enough  inaccuracy  in  this  representation,  both 
of  the  law  and  the  custom  of  Eli's  sons,  to  make  out  the  dis- 
crepancy aimed  at.  The  law  as  it  stands  in  tlie  passages  cited 
from  Leviticus  required  the  offerer  of  the  peace-oiffering  to 
give  to  the  priest  the  fat  and  the  breasit  and  right  thigh.  The 
priest  was  to  burn  the  fat  as  the  Lord's  pa,rt,  then  wave  before 
the  Lord  the  breast  and  thigh  as  his  own  part.  The  rest  of 
the  animal  was  cooked  and  eaten  by  the  offerer  and  his  family. 
To  deal  fairly  with  the  case,  we  should  suppose  that  thus  far 
the  sons  of  Eli  proceeded  according  to  the  law ;  and  that  they 
did  so  is  implied  in  what  follows;  for  the  first  offense  charged 
against  them  in  the  text,  but  wholly  unnoticed  by  our  critic, 
is,  that  while  the  offerer  was  boiling  his  portion  of  the  flesh 
the  priest's  servant  came  with  a  flesh-hook  of  three  teeth  and 
stuck  it  into  the  vessel,  and  whatever  it  brought  up  he  took 
awav.      This  is  evidentlv  treated  as  an  exaction  bevond  what 


148  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

the  priest  was  entitled  to.  Tlie  second  charge  is,  that  before 
they  burned  the  fat,  that  is,  before  they  gave  the  Lo^rd  his  poa'- 
tion,  they  made  another  exaction  by  demanding  from  the 
offerer  »ome  of  his  portion  of  the  raw  flesh.  Here  were  two 
exactions  beyond  what  the  law  allowed;  and  the  law  has  to  be 
presupposed  in  order  to  see  the  unlawfulness  of  the  priest's 
conduct.  The  bearing  of  the  passage,  then,  is  the  reverse  of 
what  is  claimed  by  the  critic.  It  shows  that  the  law  was 
known,  by  showing  the  ways  in  which  it  was  violated.  Fur- 
thermore, without  the  pre-existence  of  the  Levitical  law,  how 
would  these  priests,  or  the  woirshipers,  have  known  anything 
about  the  fat,  o-r  about  the  priests'  portion  and  the  people's  por- 
tion of  the  peace-offerings  ?  How  could  anybody  have  thought 
that  "the  sin  of  the  young  men  was  very  great  before  Jehovah," 
if  Jehovah  had  not  given  the  law  which  they  were  violating? 
A  wicked  violation  of  the  law  necessarily  presupposes  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  law. 

(2)  The  ark  stood,  not  in  the  tabernacle,  but  in  a  temple  with 
door-posts  and  folding  doors,  which  were  thrown  open  during  the 
day  (I.  Sam.  i.  9;  iii.  15). 

True,  the  structure  in  which  the  ark  stood  is  in  the  first 
of  these  passages  called  "the  temple  of  Jehovah."  In  the  sec- 
ond it  is  called  "the  house  of  Jehovah."  But  in  ii.  22  it  is 
called  by  its  old  name,  "the  tent  of  meeting."  If  it  was  the 
tent  of  meeting,  this  constituted  it  the  house  of  Jehovah  and 
the  temple  of  Jehovah;  for  any  structure  devoted  to  the  wor- 
ship of  God  bears  properly  both  of  the  latter  titles. 

(3)  But  the  structure  here  called  a  temple  had  "door-posts  and 
folding  doors,"  whereas  the  tent  of  meeting  had  only  "an  embroi- 
dered linen  hanging  in  front." 

True,  but  it  is  still,  according  to  the  same  writer, 
"the  tent  of  meeting."  What  follows  ?  That  the  struc- 
ture is  no  longer  the  tent  of  meeting?  or  that  the 
tent  of  meeting  now  has,  in  addition  to  its  front  cur- 
tain, a  wooden  protection  with  doors  to  open  and  shuti — • 
doors  which  are  closed  at  night,  but  which  leave  the  front  as  it 
was  from  the  beginning  when  they  are  opened  in  the  daytime? 


THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY.  143 

This  is  all ;  and  it  is  not  strange  that  in  the  course  of  three 
centuries  since  this  tent  was  constructed,  a  wooden  protection, 
v/hether  with  or  without  divine  authority,  was  erected  in  front 
of  it.      This  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  ''^ritual  of  Shiloh." 

(4)  In  the  evening  a  lamp  was  burned  in  the  temple  (I.  Sam 
iii.  3),  but,  contrary  to  the  Levitical  prescription  (Ex.  xxvii.  21; 
Lev.  xxiv.  2),  the  light  was  not  kept  up  all  night,  but  was  allowed 
to  go  out  after  the  ministers  of  the  temple  lay  down  to  sleep   (ib.). 

This  neglect  is  easily  accounted  for,  when  we  reineiuber 
the  avarice  and  general  wickedness  of  Eli's  sons  who  were 
then  the  active  "ministers  of  the  temple ;"  hut  how,  if  this  was 
not  the  old  tent  of  meeting  in  which  the  Levitical  law  required 
the  lamp  to  bum  all  night,  can  it  be  accounted  for  that  it  was 
burned  even  a  part  of  the  night?  Here,  again,  a  partial  neg- 
lect of  the  law  shows  the  previous  existence  of  the  law. 

(5)  Access  to  the  temple  was  not  guarded  on  the  rules  of  Leviti- 
cal sanctity.  According  to  I.  Sam.  iii.  3,  Samuel,  as  a  servant  of 
the  sanctuary,  who  had  special  charge  of  the  doors  (verse  15),  actu- 
ally slept  "in  the  temple  of  Jehovah  where  the  ark  of  God  was." 

Yes,  he  actually  slept  in  the  temj^le  where  the  ark  of  God 
"was;  and  if  this  means  that  he  slept  in  the  same  apartment  of 
the  temple  in  which  the  ark  was,  there  was  certainly  a  viola- 
tion of  the  Levitical  law.  But  how  could  this  be  thought 
strange  under  the  management  of  such  priests  as  Hophni  and 
Phinehas  ?  iNTothing  was  too  irregular  or  unlawful  to  meet 
their  sanction  if  it  suited  their  whims  or  their  convenience. 
If  it  is  objected  that  Eli  was  in  supreme  control,  the  objection 
is  set  aside  by  the  fact  that  Eli's  sons  had  complete  control 
of  Eli. 

But  does  this  text  mean  that  Samuel  slept  in  the  holy 
of  holies,  the  inner  room  of  the  sanctuary  ?  It  does  not  so 
assert ;  for  if  he  slept  in  the  holy  place,  or  in  the  wooden  struc- 
ture which  had  been  erected  in  front,  he  would  still  be  said 
to  sleep  in  the  temple  of  the  Lord.  We  have  similar  phrase- 
ology in  reference  to  the  temple  in  the  time  of  Christ.  "Wliat- 
ever  was  done  in  the  Jewish  court,  or  in  the  Gentile  court,  was 
said  to  be  done  in  the  temple.  The  fair  construction  of  the 
text,    the    construction   which    was    always    put    upon    it    till 


150  THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF 

destructive  critics  commenced  their  work,  is  merely  that  Sam- 
uel slept  in  some  part  oi  the  structure  in  which  it  was  thought 
proper  for  a  little  boy  to  sleep. 

(6)  It  is  taken  for  granted  that  Samuel  became  a  priest  at  once. 
As  a  child  he  ministers  before  Jehovah,  wearing  the  ephod  which 
the  law  confines  to  the  high  priest,  and  not  only  this,  but  the  high 
priestly  mantle— I.  Sam.  ii.  18,  19  (270). 

I  wonder  if  Professor  Smith  never  saw  a  little  boy  dressed 
up  in  the  uniform  of  a  British  officer — buttons,  feathers,  gold 
lace  and  all  ?  Did  he  argue  from  that  that  those  who  dressed 
him  so  took  it  for  granted  that  he  was  already  a  major-geai- 
eral  ?  Why,  then,  charge  such  folly  on  little  Samuel's  mother 
when  she  dressed  him  in  imitation  of  a  priest?  There  is  no 
evidence  that  he  wore  either  the  ephod  or  the  mantle  excetpt 
in  his  childhood,  when  he  could  not  officiate  as  a  priest,  even 
if  he  had  been  the  son  of  a  priest. 

(7)  And,  above  all,  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  service  of  the  great 
day  of  expiation  could  not  have  been  legitimately  performed  in  the 
temple  of  Shiloh,  where  there  was  no  awful  seclusion  of  the  ark  in 
an  inner  adyton,  veiled  from  every  eye,  and  inaccessible  on  ordinary 
occasions  to  every  foot  (i&.). 

This  is  true  only  on  the  supposition  that  Samuel  slept  in 
the  most  holy  place,  of  which,  as  we  have  said  above,  there  is 
no  proof.  The  inner  sanctuary  may  have  been  as  closely 
veiled  as  ever  before  and  the  child  may  have  slept  in  some 
other  part  of  the  "house  of  Jehovah." 

(8)  These  things  strike  at  the  root  of  the  Levitical  system  of 
access  to  God.  But  of  them  the  prophet  who  came  to  Eli  has  nothing 
to  say.  He  confines  himself  to  the  extortions  of  the  younger  priests 
(i&.). 

On  the  contrary,  we  have  seen  that  not  one  of  "these  things" 
strikes  at  the  root  of  the  Levitical  system,  except  the  miscon- 
duct of  the  priests;  and  it  follows  that  when  the  prophet 
rebuked  Eli  for  this  alone,  he  did  precisely  right.  The  propo- 
sition that  the  ritual  of  Shiloh  was  not  the  ritual  of  the  Levit- 
ical law,  has,  we  now  see,  no  more  truth  in  it  than  the  one  pre- 
ceding it,  that  "the  whole  religion  of  the  time  of  the  judges  was 
Levitically  false." 


The  book  of  deuteronomi^.  isi 

After  the  removal  of  the  ark  from  the  tent  of  meeting  in 
Shiloh,  and  its  stay  of  seven  months  in  the  land  of  the  Phil- 
istines, it  remained  twenty  years  in  Kiriath-jearim  before  we 
learn  anything  more  of  the  altar  service  in  Israel.  During 
that  period  the  Philistines  held  control  of  central  Paleetine, 
and  Samuel  was  growing  up  from  childhood  to  manhood.  He 
then  took  control  of  public  affairs,  and  acted  in  the  threefold 
capacity  of  judge,  prophet  and  priest  until  Saul  was  fully 
inducted  into  his  office  as  king  (I.  Sam.  vii.  1-xii.  25).  He 
did  not  restore  the  ark  to  its  place  in  the  tent  of  meeting, 
neither  did  he  ever  return  to  the  latter  or  restore  its  priestr 
hood.      In  view  of  these  facts,  Robertson  Smith  remarks: 

The  truth  is  that  Samuel  did  not  know  of  a  systematic  and  ex- 
clusive system  of  sacrificial  ritual  confined  exclusively  to  the  sanctuary 
of  the  ark  (0.  T.,  274). 

The  truth  of  this  assertion  we  have  suflSciently  discussed  in 
Section  3, 

But  while  we  have  sufficiently  refuted  in  Section  3  the 
arguments  of  the  critics,  there  is  another  side  to  the  evidcHce 
drawn  from  this  part  of  Israel's  history.  Robertson  Smith 
himself  mentions  a  number  of  facts  connected  with  it,  the  true 
bearing  of  which  on  the  general  question  he  fails  to  observe. 
He  cites  the  facts  that  Saul  "destroyed  necromancy;"  that  "he 
was  keenly  alive  to  the  sin  of  eating  flesh  with  the  blood ;"  that 
a  man  ceremonially  unclean  "might  not  sit  at  his  table"  {ib., 
271).  But  how  did  Saul  know  these  things,  every  one  of 
which  was  a  subject  of  Levitical  legislation,  if  the  Levitical 
law  had  not  yet  been  given?  "The  priests,"  he  says,  "of  the 
house  of  Eli  were  at  !N^ob,  where  there  was  a  regular  sanctuary 
with  shewbread,  and  no  less  than  eighty-five  priests  wearing  a 
linen  ephod"  (272).  But  how  could  they  have  a  regular  sanc- 
tuary with  shewbread,  if  the  law  in  wdiich  this  unique  kind  of 
bread  to  be  eaten  by  priests  alone  originated,  had  not  yet  been 
given  ?  The  parts  of  the  law  which  w^ere  still  observed  dur- 
ing periods  of  religious  anarchy  were  precisely  such  as  to 
prove  that  the  law  had  been  given ;  for  they  were  such  as  could 
not  spring  up  independently. 


152  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

5.  Oiferings  Made  bv  Saul  and  David,  Professor  Smith 
specifies,  om  2>ag"es  274  ajid  275  of  his  woa-k,  several  other  irreg- 
ularities which  2>rove  ignorance,  as  he  argues,  of  the  Levitr 
ical  law: 

(1)  Saul's  sacrifice  a,t  Gilgal  (I.  Sam.  xiii.  8),  which  he 
says  was  not  regarded  as  a  sin  because  he  was  not  of  the  house 
of  Aaron,  but  because  he  did  not  wait  for  the  jiresence  of 
Samuel;  and  in  this  connection  he  alleges  that  it  was  then  the 
privilege  of  every  Israelite  to  offer  sacrifice.  It  is  true  that 
Saul  sinned  by  not  waiting  for  the  jyrophet ;  but  there  is  no 
evidence  whatever  that  he  personally  officiated  at  the  altar. 
Immediately  after  the  sacrifice  he  moved  his  little  army  back 
up  to  Gibeah,  whence  tliey  had  fled  seven  days  before  from  the 
Philistines,  and  wheji  he  reaclued  that  place  Ahitub  the  priest 
was  with  him,  and  was  called  on  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  (xiii. 
15,  16;  xiv.  1-3,  18,  19),  How  can  Professor  Smith  know 
that  he  did  not  come  up  from  Gilgal  with  Saul,  and  that  Saul 
did  not  offer  the  burnt  offerings  and  peace-offerings  at  Gilgal 
by  his  hand,  and  not  by  his  own  ?  Has  a  critic  the  right  to 
assert  that  which  he  can  not  know  to  be  true,  and  that,  too, 
when  the  probabilities  are  against  his  assertions?  This  he 
does,  not  only  in  Saul's  individual  case,  but  in  the  statement 
that  at  that  time  to  offer  sacrifice  in  the  same  sense  was  the 
privilege  of  every  Israelite ;  for  this  stateanent  can  not  be  made 
good  by  a  single  specification;  and  it  is  falsified  by  the  fact 
that  Elkanah,  and  the  people  in  general,  until  disgusted  by  the 
priests  at  Shiloh,  went  to  those  priests,  wicked  as  they  were, 
to  present  their  offerings, 

(2)  It  is  said  of  David: 

When  he  brought  up  the  ark  to  Jerusalem  he  wore  the  priestly 
ephod,  offered  sacrifices  in  person,  and,  to  make  it  quite  clear  that 
in  all  this  he  assumed  a  priestly  function,  he  blessed  the  people  as 
a  priest  in  the  name  of  Jehovah — II.  Sam.  vi.  14,  18  (0.  T.,  274). 

Here,  again,  it  is  assumed  without  the  slightest  warrant, 
that  the  sacrifices  offered  by  David  were  offered  by  his  o^vn 
hand  as  a  priest.  On  the  contrary,  Abiathar  the  priest  was  a 
constant  companion  of  David,  and    had    been    ever    since    he 


THE   BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  153 

joined  liis  company  in  the  cave  of  Adiillam,  and  tho  author  of 
Chronicles  says  ecxpressly  that  both  he  and  Zadok  the  priest 
were  with  him  when  he  moved  the  ark  (I.  Chron.  xv.  11,  12). 
In  this  whole  procedure  the  law  w^as  o-bserved ;  for  tlie  ark  was 
carried  by  its  own  bars  on  the  shoulders  of  Levites,  and  the 
writer  adds,  "as  Moses  commanded  according  to  the  word  of 
Jehovah"  (verse  15).  Critics  very  conveniently  sot  this  tes- 
timony aside  by  denying  the  truthfulness  of  the  account;  but 
this  is  only  another  example  of  ai>plying  historical  criticism 
by  denying  history. 

The  ephod  which  he  wore  on  this  occasion  was  the  linen 
outer  garment,  imperfectly  plain,  of  the  common  priest.  It  was 
the  simplest  garment  which  he  could  wear,  and  involved  the 
laying  aside  of  his  royal  apparel.  It  incurred  the  displeasure 
of  Michal  to  see  the  king  so  humbly  attired,  and  she  exclaimed 
to  him,  "How  glorious  was  the  king  of  Israel  to-day  who  uncov- 
ered himself  to-day  in  the  eyes  of  the  handmaids  of  his  serv- 
ants." He  answered  her,  "It  was  before  Jehovah  ...  I  will 
be  yet  more  vile  than  this,  and  will  be  base  in  my  own  sight" 
(II.  Sam.  vi.  20-23).  He  was  not  assuming  the  office  of  a 
priest,  but  w^as  adopting  their  simple  vesture  in  order  to  hum- 
ble himself  before  Jehovali.  As  to  his  blessing  the  people  in 
the  name  of  Jehovah,  it  is  absurd  to  represent  this  as  a  priest- 
ly function,  as  though  a  pious  king  might  not  call  for  God's 
blessing  on  his  subjects.  The  critic's  tliought  seems  to  have 
been  born  of  the  sacerdotalism  of  some  modern  churches,  which 
in  their  exaltation  of  their  clergy  have  fallen  uj)on  the  idea 
that  only  a  clergyman  can  pi*operly  pronounce  the  benediction 
at  the  close  of  a  religious  meeting. 

6.   The    Priesthood    of   David's    Sons.       Hobertson    Smith 

continues : 

In  II.  Sam.  viii.  18  we  read  that  David's  sons  were  priests.  This 
statement,  so  incredible  on  the  traditionary  theory,  has  led  our  Eng- 
lish version,  following  the  Jewish  tradition  of  the  Targum,  to  change 
the  sense,  and  substitute  "chief  rulers"  for  priests.  But  the  Hebrew 
word  means  priests,  and  can  not  mean  anything  else   (275). 

If  this  is  true,  and  if  the  woixi  "priest"  is  here  tised  in 
its    ordinary    sense,    then    unquestionably    we   have   here    one 


154  THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF 

instance  of  a  violation  of  the  Levitical  law.  Wbetliei*  such  a 
violation  was  to  our  English  translators  so  "incredible"  that 
they  changed  the  sense,  is  another  question.  It  is  easy  to 
imagine  that  they  had  not  discovered  what  Professor  Smith 
so  j3ositively  asserts,  that  "die  Hebrew  word  can  mean  nothing 
else."  They  may  have  supposed  that,  while  priest  is  its  pri- 
mary meaning,  it  might  have  a  secondary  meaning,  or  it  might 
"be  used  as  an  honorary  title.  The  bold  assertion  that  it  can 
mean  nothing  else,  can  scarcely  be  made  truthfully  of  any 
word  in  any  language.  Take,  for  instance,  the  Hebrew  word 
for  father,  which  occurs  about  the  same  number  of  times  with 
the  word  for  priest.  If  you  say  that  it  means  father,  and  "can 
mean  nothing  else,"  then  you  will  make  the  prophet  Elijah  the 
father  of  Elisha ;  for  the  latter  om  one  occasion  addresses  the 
former  as  "my  father"  (II.  Kings  ii.  12).  If  our  translators, 
through  fear  lest  some  readers  might  suppose  that  this  was  the 
actual  relationship  between  the  two  prophets,  had  ventured 
to  substitute  for  this  complimentary  use  of  the  word  "father" 
the  word  "leader,"  or  "master,"  and  some  modern  critic,  with 
a  pet  theory  to  support,  had  come  forward  with  the  affirmation 
that  father  and  son  was  their  relationship,  and  that  the  trans- 
lators had  thought  this  so  incredible  that  they  had  changed 
the  sense,  we  should  have  a  case  parallel  to  the  one  made  out 
by  Professor  Smith.  Or  suppose  that  a  Latin  scholar,  reading 
medieval  Latin,  should  find  that  tJie  clergy  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  of  Rome  were  married  men  with  children? 
He  would  miss  the  truth  as  Smith  does  in  saying  that  David's 
sons  were  officiating  priests.  Yet  again,  should  a  Frenchman 
see  a  list  of  all  the  colonels  in  Kentucky,  and  find  them  to  be 
five  hundred  in  number,  he  might  argue  after  Smith  that  a 
colonel  means  a  commander  of  a  regiment  of  soldiers,  and  it 
can  mean  nothing  else ;  therefore  the  militia  force  of  Kentucky 
includes  five  hundred- regiments,  or  five  hundred  thousand  men. 
While  Professor  Smith  is  so  confident  as  to  the  meaning 
of  this  word,  I  find  another  competent  Hebrew  scholar  who 
represents  it  differently.      He  is  the  author  of  the  Book  of 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  155 

Chronicles;  and  Hebrew  was  his  veimacuhir.  He  had  the 
Book  of  Samuel  before  him  when  ho  wrote,  and  he  copied 
much  from  it;  but  when  he  came  to  the  list  of  David's  chief 
officers,  instead  of  rendering  the  last  clause,  "David's  sons 
were  priests,"  he  expresses  it,  "the  sons  of  David  were  chief 
about  the  king"  (I.  Chron,  xviii.  17;  cf.  II.  Sam.  viii.  18). 
Now,  this  was  either  a  deliberate  change  of  the  text,  of  which 
the  author  of  a  sacred  book  ought  not  to  be  suspected,  or  it 
was  a  free  rendering  intended  to  express  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "priest"  in  tliat  connection.  It  shows  that  the  word  is 
employed  in  an  unusual  sense.  The  priests  under  tlie  Levit- 
ical  law  were  an  order  of  nobility,  having  hereditary  privi- 
leges not  shared  by  others,  and  as  there  was  no  other  rank  or 
title  of  nobility  in  the  early  years  of  Israel  by  which  the  sons 
of  the  king  might  be  distinguisheid,  it  was  but  natural  to  give 
them  the  honorary  title  of  priest.  If  the  peoj^le  knew  that 
they  were  not  priests  in  reality,  they  would  understand  the 
title,  as  Komanists  now  do  the  title  "Father,"  and  as  Ken- 
tuckians  do  the  title  "Colonel." 

7.  Solomon's  Career.  Continuing  his  argument,  Profes- 
sor Smith  says : 

But  in  fact  the  Book  of  Kings  expressly  recognizes  the  worship 
of  the  high  places  as  legitimate  up  to  the  time  when  the  temple  was 
built — I.  Kings  iii.  2,  seq.   (ib.,  275). 

Professor  Smith  ought  not  to  have  made  this  statement; 
for  it  flatly  contradicts  the  passage  which  he  cites,  but  does 
not  quote.  The  passage  reads  thus:  "Only  the  people  sacri- 
ficed in  high  places,  because  there  was  no  house  built  for  the 
name  of  Jehovah  until  those  days.  And  Solomon  loved  Jeho- 
vah, walking  in  the  statutes  of  David  his  father.  Only  he 
sacrificed  and  burnt  incense  in  the  high  places."  Here  the 
praise  of  Solomon  for  loving  God  and  walking  in  the  statutes 
of  his  father,  is  discounted  by  the  fact  that  he  sacrificed  and 
burnt  incense  in  the  high  places ;  and  the  remark  that  the  peo- 
ple did  the  same  is  introduced  by  "only,"  to  indicate  that  in 
this  they  did  wrong.  The  Book  of  Kings,  then,  instead  of 
expressly  recognizing  this  worship  as  legitimate  till  the  tem- 


156  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

pie  was  builtj  expressly  condemns  it,  and  this  Professor  Smith 
would  have  known  had  he  read  carefully  the  text  before  he 
referred  to  it  to  prove  the  opposite.  This  method  of  citing  the 
Scriptures  is  characteristic  of  tliis  class  of  critics. 

On©  would  naturally  suppose  tliat,  w.hen  we  find  Solomon 
constructing  his  temple,  placing  in  it  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
and  the  materials  of  the  dismantled  tent  of  meeting,  ajid  espe- 
cially when  he  inaugurated  tlie  elaborate  temple  ritual, 
tliere  would  be  an  end  at  last  to  tbe  denial  that  the  Levitical 
law  was  yet  in  existence.  But  the  same  confident  denials 
assail  us  here  as  in  the  previous  history,  Robertson  Smith 
utters  the  voice  of  his  fellow  critics  when  he  raises  the  ques- 
tion and  answers  it  in  the  negative,  "Was  the  founding  of  the 
temple  on  Zion  undertaken  as  part  of  an  attempt  to  give  prac- 
tical force  to  the  Levitical  system  ?"  He  declares  that  "tlie 
whole  life  of  Solomon  answeTS  tliis  questiion  in  the  negative" 
(259).  Let  us  see  witli  what  kind  of  evidence  this  startling 
proposition  is  supported: 

1.  He  not  only  did  not  abolish  the  local  sanctuaries,  but  he  built 
new  shrines,  which  stood  till  the  time  of  Josiah,  for  the  gods  of  the 
foreign  wives  whom,  like  his  father  David  (II.  Sam.  iii.  3),  he  mar- 
ried against  the  Pentateuchal  law — I.  Kings  xi.;  II.  Kings  xxiii.  13 
(259,  260). 

If  the  proposition  was  that  Solomon  violated  some  of  the 
statutes  of  the  law,  the  facts  here  stated  would  be  in  point. 
That  be  did  so  needs  no  argument;  it  is  set  forth  as  emphat- 
ically by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  as  it  is  by  Robertson 
Smith.  But  how  does  the  fact  that  he  thus  violated  the  law 
show  that  his  founding  of  the  temple  was  not  an  attempt  to 
give  practical  force  to  the  law  ?  Many  a  man  has  erected 
buildings  for  the  worship  of  God,  and  has  failed  to  worship 
bim,  or  has  worshiped  him  very  imperfectly.  But  the  state- 
ment of  facts  here  made  demands  modification.  The  only 
"local  sanctuary"  named  in  tlie  text  at  which  Solomon  offered 
worship  was  tlie  one  at  Gibeon,  where  the  old  tent  of  meeting 
then  stood,  witb  the  brazen  altar  built  by  Moses  in  front  of  it; 
and  this  he  moved  into  the  "chambers"  of  the  temple  after 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  157 

the  latter  was  built.  After  the  erection  of  the  temple  there  is 
no  evidence  that  either  he  or  his  subjects  worshiped  Jehovah 
at  such  places  during  his  reign.  His  only  departure  fro'm  the 
law  in  this  respect  was  the  erection  of  heathen  altars  on  the 
high  place  in  front  of  Jerusalem,  for  the  accommodation  of  his 
heathen  wives.  This  is  treated  in  the  text  as  an  apostasy  from 
the  system  of  worship  represented  by  the  temple.  The  same 
is  true  of  his  marriage  with  women  belonging  to  the  tribes  with 
which  Israel  had  been  forbidden  to  intermarry.  His  commis- 
sion of  these  sins,  even  the  worst  of  them,  is  no  proof  that  the 
service  continually  observed  in  the  temple  was  any  other  than 
that  prescribed  in  the  Levitical  law.  !N^othing  has  been  more 
common  in  the  history  of  religion  than  strictness  of  ritual  serv- 
ice accompanied,  in  the  same  individual,  by  disregard  of  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law. 

2.  And  when  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  describes  what  a  king  of 
Israel  must  not  be,  it  reproduces  line  for  line  the  features  of  the  court 
of  Solomon— Deut.  xvii.  16,  seq.   (260), 

This  is  true  of  just  three  features  of  his  court — his  mul- 
tiplication of  horses,  of  wives,  and  of  gold  and  silver.  If  it 
were  proved  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  after  Solomon's 
reign,  this  would  account  for  the  correspondence ;  and  if  it  were 
proved  that  it  was  written  before  his  reign,  this  wonld  account 
for  it ;  for,  as  we  have  said  before,  Moses  knew  by  the  example 
of  the  Pharaohs  that  the  maintenance  of  a  large  cavalry  force 
was  a  disastrous  drain  upon  the  resources  of  a  nation,  and  a 
constant  temptation  to  war;  that  a  great  multiplication  of 
wives,  such  as  enabled  Rameses  II.  to  have  sixty-nine  sons  and 
seventy  daughters,  was  almost  equally  disastrous;  and  he  knew 
that  the  attempt  to  amass  great  hoards  of  gold  and  silver  would 
ordinarily  involve  extreme  oppression  of  the  people.  In  mak- 
ing laws,  then,  to  govern  the  future  king,  should  there  ever  be 
one,  his  natural  good  sense,  even  without  the  aid  of  inspiration, 
would  lead  him  to  say  just  what  is  said  in  Deuteronomy.  As 
the  coincidence,  then,  is  adequately  accounted  for  on  either 
hypothesis,  it  is  a  fallacy  of  which  scientific  critics  ought  to  be 
ashamed,  to  use  it  as  proof  of  either. 


158  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

3.  The  two  brazen  pillars  which  stood  at  the  porch  (I.  Kings  vli. 
21)  were  not  different  from  the  forbidden  macceba,  or  from  the  twin 
pillars  that  stood  in  front  of  Phoenician  and  Syrian  sanctuaries  (i&.). 

How  could  Professor  Smith  know  this?  Did  pillars  or 
columns  about  all  temples  have  the  same  significance?  We 
know  that  those  called  obelisks,  which  stood  by  Egyptian  tem- 
ples, were  lined  with  inscriptions  in  praise  of  the  gods  wor- 
shiped there,  or  of  the  kings  who  erected  the  temples;  and  wo 
know  that  the  Doric,  Ionian  or  Corinthian  columns  connected 
with  Greek  temples  had  no  such  significance,  but  were  purely 
omamental.  How  was  it  with  these  two  brazen  pillars  before 
the  temple  ?  There  was  not  a  letter  of  inscription  on  them. 
They  were,  from  their  nature  and  form,  highly  ornamental. 
Their  combined  names,  Jachin  and  Boaz,  meant,  ''He  shall 
establish  it  in  strength,"  and  had  referencei,  no  doubt,  to  the 
firm  establishment  of  God's  worship  in  that  house.  What  was 
there  in  this  forbidden  by  the  Levitical  law,  or  the  law  in  Deu- 
teronomy? The  argument  would  have  been  far  more  plausi- 
ble if  it  had  been  directed  against  the  two  gigantic  images  of 
cherubim  that  stood  in  the  oracle,  overshadowing  the  ark  with 
their  outstretched  wings.  That  device  has  some  semblance  to 
a  violation  of  the  Second  Commandment;  yet  it  showed  how 
perfectly  Solomon  understood  that  commandment  as  not  foT- 
bidding  the  making  of  images  except  when  they  were  intended 
as  objects  of  worship. 

4.  I.  Kings  ix.  25  can  hardly  bear  any  other  sense  than  that  the 
king  officiated  at  the  altar  in  person  three  times  a  year.  That  implies 
an  entire  neglect  on  his  part  of  the  strict  law  of  separation  between 
the  legitimate  priesthood  and  laymen  (i&.). 

That  text  reads  thus :  "Three  times  in  a  year  did  Solomon 
offer  burnt  offerings  upon  the  altar  which  he  built  unto  Jeho- 
vah, burning  incense  therewith  upon  the  altar  that  was  before 
Jehovah."  How  does  this  prove  that  he  "officiated  at  the  altar 
in  person"?  The  very  next  sentence  is,  "And  King  Solomon 
made  a  navy  of  ships."  Would  a  scientific  critic  say,  This 
can  hardly  bear  any  other  sense  than  that  the  king  made  these 
ships  in  person  ?  I  think  not.  Then,  why  stultify  himself  by 
applying  to  words  connected  M'itli  offerings  a  rule  of  interpreta- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  159 

tion  wkicli  is  absurd  if  applied  to  tJie  same  woi'da  in  otlier  con- 
nections ?  Elkanah,  the  father  of  Samuel,  came  up  to  Shiloh 
from  year  to  year  "to  sacrifice  unto  Jehovah"  (I.  Sam.  i.  3)  ; 
why  not  say  that  he  also'  officiated  at  the  altar  ?  The  obvious 
answer  is  that  the  exigencies  of  criticism  did  not  call  for  such  a 
l^erversion  in  the  case  of  Elkanah,  but  they  did  in  tlie  case 
of  Solomon, 

There  is  still  another  view  of  Solomon's  career  which  wo 
must  not  omit.  The  specifications  just  considered  are'  the 
proof  that  the  whole  life  of  Solomon  answers  in  the  negative 
the  question  whether  his  founding  of  the  temple  was  an  attempt 
to  enforce  the  Levitical  system.  But  is  the  whole  life  of  Solo- 
mon involved  in  these  specifications  ?  Why  is  it  forgotten  thai 
he  devoted  seven  years  of  his  reign,  vast  sums  of  money,  and 
the  labor  of  180,000  of  his  subjects,  to  the  erectioiii  of  a  magnif- 
icent temple  suitable  oaily  for  the  Levitical  system  of  worship  ? 
For  what  form  of  worship  was  that  temple  divided  into  the 
holy  and  the  most  holy  places,  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in 
the  latter,  and  the  altar  of  incense,  the  candlesticks  of  gold^ 
and  the  table  of  shewbread  in  the  former,  unless  it  was  for  the 
observance  of  the  rites  prescribed  in  the  Levitical  law  ?  Why 
the  altar  of  burnt  offerings  in  front,  and  the  lavers,  and  the 
inner  court,  except  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the  same 
law  ?  And  why  did  Solomon  offer  sacrifices  on  the  altar  three 
times  every  year,  corresponding  to-  the^  threei  annual  festivals 
appointed  in  the  Levitical  law  ?  Why  did  he,  after  the  erection 
and  dedication  of  the  temple,  refrain  from  offering  sacrifices  at 
any  other  spot  until,  in  his  old  age,  and  under  the  persuasions 
of  his  many  wives,  he  was  induced  to  accommodate'  them  by  the 
erection  of  altars  to  their  several  gods  ?  Herein  lies,  not  the 
whole  of  Solomon's  life,  but  an  imanensely  greater  part  of  it 
than  in  any  of  the  departures  from  the  Levitical  law  of  which 
he  was  guilty.  It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  a  more  eri'o- 
neous  representation  of  the  life  of  a  great  king  than  this  that 
we  have  considered.  And  this  is  historical  criticism — a  criti- 
cism which  sets  aside  history  to  make  good  its  conclusions. 


160  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

8.  Evidence  from  Foreign  Guards  in,  the  Temple..  It  is 
asserted  by  our  critics  that  the  bodj-guard  of  foreigners  which 
from  the  time  of  David  was  kept  by  the  kings  of  Judah,  were 
admitted  within  the  temple,  and  took  the  same  part  in  the  serv- 
ice which  the  Levitical  law  restricted  to'  the  Levites ;  and  this 
is  held  as  proof  conclusive  that  this  law  had  not  yet  been  given 
Robertson  Smith  expresses  it  thus : 

As  long  as  Solomon's  temple  stood,  and  even  after  the  reforms  ot 
Josiah,  the  function  of  keeping  the  ward  of  the  sanctuary,  which  by 
I.evitical  law  is  strictly  confined  to  the  house  of  Levi,  on  pain  of  death 
to  the  stranger  who  comes  nigh  (Num.  iii.  38),  devolved  upon  uncircum- 
cised  foreigners,  who,  according  to  the  law,  ought  never  to  have  been 
permitted  to  set  foot  within  the  courts  of  the  temple  (ib.,  263). 

In  another  place  he  styles  this  "the  admission  of  uncircum- 
cised  strangers  as  ministers  in  the  sanctuary"  (265).  Had 
we  not  already  found  in  his  book  so  many  misrepresentations 
of  Scripture,  we  should  be  astonished  at  such  a  statement  from 
the  pen  of  such  a  scholar.  Let  us  seei  what  the  facts  in  this 
case  are. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  this  irregularity  was  permitted  by 
either  David  or  Solomon.  The  first  instance  cited  is  under 
Eehoboam.  Smith  says,  "The  guard  accompanied  the  king 
when  he  visited  the  sanctuary."  The  text  says  (I,  Kings  xiv. 
28)  :  "As  often  as  the  king  went  intO'  the  house  of  Jehovah,  the 
guard  bore  them  [the  shields  of  brass  which  he  had  made  after 
Shishak  had  taken  away  the  shields  of  gold],  and  brought  them 
back  into  the  guard  chamber."  It  is  not  here  said,  nor  is  it 
implied,  that  the  guard  "went  into'  the  house  of  Jehovah." 
The  Sultan  of  Turkey  is  accompanied  by  a  military  guard  as 
often  as  he  goes  to  the  mosque ;  but  when  he  enters  the  mosque 
the  guard  remains  outside.  How  does  any  man  know  that  this 
wa.s  not  the  case  with  Rehoboam's  guard  ? 

Leaping  from  this  passage  in  I.  Kings  to  II.  Kings  xi.  19, 
Professor  Smith's  next  proof  is  the  fact  that  "the  temple  gate 
leading  to  the  palace  was  called  the  gate  of  the  foot-guards." 
What  of  that  ?  Does  it  j^rove  that  the  foot-guards  passed  in 
and  out  through  this  gate,  or  is  it  just  as  probable  that  it  was 
so  called  because  they  habitually  halted  and  waited  at  this  gate 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  161 

while  the  king  was  worshiping  inside  ?  The  name  of  the  gate 
does  not  imply  that  the  guards  ever  passed  through  it.  Again, 
it  is  asserted -that  this  royal  body-guard  "was  also  the  temple 
guard,  going  in  and  out  in  courses  every  week,"  and  that  when 
the  priest  Jehoiada  crowned  the  young  king  Jehoash,  he  "was 
surrounded  by  the  foreign  body-giiard,  who  fonned  a  circle 
about  the  altar  and  the  front  of  the  shrine,  in  the  holiest  part 
of  the  temple  court." 

This  is  all  based  on  what  is  said  about  the  Carites  ("ca.2> 
tains"  in  A.  V.)  in  the  account  of  the  crowning  of  Jehoash 
by  Jehoiada.  But  the  Carites,  generally  supposed  to  be  the 
foreign  body-guard,  are  mentioned  only  twice  in  the  proceed- 
ings, and  in  both  instances  they  are  expressly  distinguished 
from  the  temple  guard.  In  the  first  instance  it  is  said  that 
Jehoiada  sent  and  fetched  the  captains  over  hundreds,  of  the 
Carites  and  of  the  guard,  and  brought  them  into  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  and  made  a  covenant  with  them,  and  took  an  oath  of 
them  in  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  showed  them  the  king's  son 
(verse  4).  In  the  second  instance  it  is  said  of  Jehoiada,  "He 
took  the  captains  over  hundreds,  and  the  Carites,  and  the 
guard,  and  all  the  people  of  the  land;  and  they  brought,  down 
the  king  from  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  came  by  the 
way  of  the  gate  of  the  guard,  unto  the  king's  house" 
(verse  19).  In  both  of  these  instances  the  Carites  and 
the  guard  are  two  distinct  bodies — as  distinct  as  each  is 
from  "all  the  people."  To  say,  then,  that  the  Carites 
were  at  this  time  the  temple  guard,  is  to  speak  not  onily 
without  authoTity,  but  in  contradiction  to  the  text.  This 
perversion  of  the  text  is  the  more  inexcusable  from  tha 
faet  that  the  previous  history  infoTms  us  unmistakably  of 
whom  the  temple  guard  coinsisted.  It  was  the  section  of 
Levites  who  were  set  apart  tO'  this  service  by  David  under  tha 
name  of  porters  (gate-keepers).  A  full  account  of  their 
appointment,  and  of  the  rules  governing  their  service,  is  given 
in  I.  Chron.  xxvi.  1-19.  I  suppose  that  Professor  Smith  and 
his  critical  predecessors  failed   to  recognize  the   real   temple 


162  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OP 

guard,  iDecaiise  of  having  rejected  as  untrue  this  passage  in 
Chronicles.  If  so,  this  is  but  anoither  instance  of  setting  aside 
a  piece  of  unimpeached  history  in  order  to  save  a  theoiy. 

In  the  first  of  these  two  instances  the  Carites  were  among 
those  brought  into  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  tO'  whom  Jehoiada 
showed  the  king ;  but  it  does  not  appear  whether  this  was  in  the 
outer  court,  into  which  Gentiles  were  admitted,  or  the  inner 
court,  into  which  only  the  circumcised  were  admitted.  If  the 
latter,  then  there  was  an  infraction  of  the  law  on  this  subject^ 
provided  the  Carites  were  uncircumcised.  If  they  were  cir- 
cumcised (and  their  long  continuance  in  the  service  of  the 
kings  of  Judah  would  naturally  lead  to  their  being  circum- 
cised), they  had  the  same  right  of  admission  into  the  inner 
court  as  the  Jews.  If  they  were  not,  Jehoiada  might  well 
excuse  himself  for  admitting  them  there  when  the  life  of  the 
king,  his  own  life,  and  the  lives  of  all  who  entered  into  the 
covenant,  were  at  stake.  Indeed,  the  continuance  of  the  house 
of  David  on  the  throne,  according  to  God's  promise,  was  at 
stake,  as  all  of  his  male  offspring  in  the  line  of  inheritance', 
except  this  child,  had  been  slaughtered  by  Athaliah.  In  such 
a  death-struggle  a  man  of  Jehoiada's  decision  and  courage 
could  not  fail  to  brush  aside  any  matter  of  mere  ritual  that 
stood  in  his  way.  If,  then,  all  that  is  logically  assumed  by 
cur  critics  in  reference  to  his  use  of  the  Carites  on  this  occa- 
sion were  true,  and  if  the  law  excluding  foreigners  from  the 
inner  court  was  in  his  hand,  still  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Jehoiada  would  have  proceeded  as  he  did.  The  incident  fur- 
nishes not  the  slightest  ground  for'  denying  his  knowledge  of 
the  Levitical  law. 

In  this  connection  Professor  Smith  mentions,  as  further 
evidence  that  the  Levitical  law  was  not  yet  known,  the  fact 
that  neither  the  sin-offering  nor  the  trespass-offering  is  once 
mentioned  before  the  captivity,  and  that  "sin-money  and  tres- 
pass-money" were  given  to  the  priests.  He  pronounces  this 
last  custom  "nothing  but  a  gross  case  of  simony"  (263  f.). 
Here  he  beitrays  an  unaccountable  ignorance  of  both  the  his- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  163 

tory  and  the  law.  For  whence  came  the  "sin-mone.y  and  the 
trespass-money"  except  from  the  sin-offerings  and  the  tres- 
pass-offeirings  ?  WTiat  is  the  meaning  of  the  very  text  on 
which  his  assertions  are  based ;  viz. :  "The  money  for  the 
guiltrofferings,  and  the  money  for  the  sin-offerings,  was  not 
brought  into  thie  hoaise  of  Jehovah :  it  was  the  priests'  "  (II. 
Kings  xii.  16)  ?  This  is  a  mention  of  these  two  offerings  as 
existing  before  the  captivity,  and  in  admitting  what  the  writer 
of  Kings  says  about  the  use  made  of  the  money,  onr  critic  is 
estopped  from  denying  what  he  says  about  the  source  of  the 
money.  And  what  does  the  law  say  about  this  money  ?  It  ex- 
pressly provides  that  when  a  man  committed  a  trespass  in  holy 
things,  he  should  bring  to  the  priest  a  ram  for  a  guilt-offering, 
and  one-fifth  of  its  value  in  money,  which  was  to  be  the  priest's 
(Lev.  V.  14-16).  It  further  provides  that  when  the  trespass 
Avas  against  a  fellow  man,  he  was  to  make  restitution  in  full, 
and  add  a  fifth  part.  This  fifth  part  was  to  go  to  the  injured 
person,  if  alive,  and  to  his  heirs,  if  he  was  dead ;  Init  if  no  heirs 
were  known,  it  was  given  to  tlie  priest  who  officiated.  Here 
are  now  two  instances  in  which  "ain-monty  and  trespass- 
money"  was  to  be  given  to  the  priests,  and  theire  is  not  a  single 
provision  of  the  law  requiring  it,  as  Professor  Smith  asserts,  to 
go  into  the  Lord's  treasury. 

In  the  same  connection,  strange  to  say,  our  critic  brings  for- 
ward as  proof  of  his  thesis,  the  sacrilege  committed  by  Ahaz 
in  setting  up  an  idolatrous  altar  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  ready  compliance  of  the  priest  Urijah  in  having  it  made 
and  set  up  under  the  king's  order.  He  must  have  felt  hard 
pressed  for  evidence  when  he  resorted  to  such  as  this.  Why 
did  he  not  bring  forward  the  worship  of  false  gods  by  Ahaz 
and  tlie  sacrifice  of  his  own  son,  as  proof  that  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments were  unknown  at  that  time  ?  It  would  have  been  as 
logical.  And  so  it  would  be  to  bring  up  the  infamous  crimes 
of  the  apostate  Julian  to  prove  that  the  Christian  religion  was 
not  yet  known  in  his  day.  The  sacrilege  committed  by  Ahaz 
consisted,  in  part,   in  the  changes  which  he  made  about  the 


16^  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

temple  in  violatiom  of  the  Levitical  law,  in  accordance  with 
which  the  temple  service  had  been  inaiigurateid.  As  to  the 
priest  Urijah,  he  is  not  the  only  priest,  whether  of  the  Jewish 
or  anj  other  religion,  who  has  violated  law  at  the  command 
of  a  wicked  king  rather  than  losei  his  place  or  his  head. 

Similar  to  this  is  the  argument,  based  on  Solomon's  deposi- 
tion of  Abiathar  as  high  priest  and  the  substitntion  of  Zadok. 
Professor  Smith  styles  it  "subornation  of  the  priesthood  to  the 
palace  carried  so  far  that  Abiathar  is  deposed  from  the  priest- 
hood, and  Zadok,  who  was  not  of  the  priestly  family  of  Sliiloh, 
set  in  his  place,  by  a  mere  fiat  of  King  Solomon"  (266  f.). 
But  Abiathar  had  been  guilty  of  treason,  the  penalty  of  wiiich 
was  death,  and  deposition  from  office  was  a  merciful  commutar 
tion.  Solomon  said  to  him:  "Thou  art  worthy  of  death:  but 
I  will  not  at  this  time  put  thee  to  death,  because  thou  bearedst 
the  ark  of  the  Lord  God  before  David  my  father,  and  because 
thou  wast  afflicted  in  all  wdierein  my  father  was  afflicted"  (I. 
Kings  ii.  26).  As  to  Zadok,  it  is  true,  as  Professor  Smith 
says,  that  he  was  not  of  the  priestly  family  of  Shiloh,  which 
family,  in  accordance  with  the  prediction  of  Samuel,  had  now 
been  deprived  of  the  priesthood,  but  he  did  belong  to  another 
branch  of  the  family  of  Aaron,  being  descended  from  Kohath 
(I.  Chron.  vi.  1-12).  It  is  constantly  affirmed  by  destructive 
critics  that  Zadok  was  not  of  the  priestly  family;  but,  in  order 
to  do  so,  they  set  aside  his  genealogy  in  Chronicles,  our  only 
source  of  information  on  the  subject  (266,  note). 

In  the  paragraph  last  quoted,  Professor  Smith  falls  into  the 
common  error  of  supposing  that  the  Israelites  were  forbidden 
to  intermarry  with  foreigners.  He  says :  "The  exclusive  sanc- 
tity of  the  nation  was  not  understood  in  a  Levitical  sense;  for 
not  only  Solomon,  but  David  himself,  intermarried  witli 
heathen  nations"  (266).  This  prohibition  had  reference  only 
to  the  tribes  of  Canaan  (Ex.  xxxiv.  11-16;  Deut.  vii.  1-3); 
consequently  the  people  were  left  as  free  to  intermarry  with 
other  nations  as  they  had  been  before  the  law  was  given. 
Indeed,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  contains  an  express  provi- 


THE   BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  165 

sion  for  the  marriage  of  Hebrews  to  foreign  womeai  taken  cap- 
tive in  war,  which  were  usually  reduced  to  slavery  (xxi.  10- 
14).  David,  therefoTe,  did  not  violate  the  Levitical  law  in 
marrying,  though  Solomon  did  (I.  Kings  xi.  1,  2).  If  it  is 
still  argued  that  SolomO'n's  course  in  this  respect  proves  that 
he  was  ignorant  of  the  Levitical  law,  you  may  just  as  well 
argue  that  his  participation  in  idolatry  is  proof  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  the  Decalogue,  or  even  of  the  First  Commandment. 
It  is  a  ne\v  thing  under  the  sun  to  argue  that  violations  of  a 
law  by  lawless  men  furnish  proof  that  the  law  was  not  known 
to  exist.     This  is  '^seientific  criticism"  ! 

9.  The  Toleration  of  High  Places.  The  last  of  Professor 
Smith's  specifications  from  the  historical  books  which  we  shall 
notice  is  expressed  in  the  following  words : 

The  priests  of  the  popular  high  places  were  recognized  priests  of 
Jehovah,  and,  instead  of  being  punished  as  apostates,  they  received 
support  and  a  certain  status  in  the  temple  (xxiii.  9).  We  now  see  th-3 
full  significance  of  the  toleration  of  the  high  places  by  the  earlier 
kings  of  Judah.  They  were  not  known  to  be  any  breach  of  the  relig- 
ious constitution  of  Israel  (259). 

What  is  here  said  of  the  priests  of  the  high  places  is  true 
only  of  so  many  of  them  as  were  priests  of  Jehovah;  that  is, 
descendants  of  Aaron.  No  heathen  priests  were  ever  admitted 
to  support  or  to  a  "status  in  the  temple."  The  statement  that 
priests  of  Jehovah  who  had  officiated  in  the  high  places  were 
not  punished  by  Josiali  is  a  contradiction  of  the  very  passage 
(xxiii.  9)  cited  in  support  of  it.  It  reads:  "I^evertheless 
the  priests  of  the  high  places  came  not  up  to  the  altar  of 
Jehovah  in  Jerusadem,  but  they  did  eat  unleavened  bread  among 
their  brethren."  This,  as  w^e  showed  in  a  former  discussion 
of  this  passage,  was  the  Levitical  law  for  all  priests  who  wx^re 
disqualified  for  the  functions  of  their  office.  Josiah  dealt 
with  them  as  the  laAV  required  sons  of  Aaron  to  be  dealt 
with  who  w^ere  defective  in  bodily  parts.  If  this  was  not  pun- 
ishing them  as  apostates,  it  was  inflicting  on  them  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  and  the  only  penalty  which  the  law  prescribed  for 
disqualified  priests. 


166  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

But,  Ie  i^roof  of  his  proposition,  Professor  Smith  refers 
to  the  toleration  of  the  high  places  hy  the  earlier  kings  of  Ju- 
dah,  and  he  especiaJlj  cites  the  exaimple  of  Jehoash  in  tolera- 
ting them  while  he  was  directed  by  the  high  priest  Jehoiada 
(II.  Kings  xii.  2,  3).  He  may  as  well  have  said,  tolerated  by 
Jehoiada ;  for  as  Jehoash  began  his  reign  at  seven  years  of  age, 
Jehoiada  had  complete  control  of  affairs  for  at  least  ten  or 
twelve  years.  But  that  faithful  priest  had  enough  on  his 
hands  without  undertaking  what  King  Hezekiah  undertook, 
but  failed  to  accomplish.  When  Athaliah  slew,  as  she  thought, 
every  male  of  the  royal  family  in  order  to  secure  to  herself 
an  undisputed  reign,  Jehoiada  and  his  wife,  at  the  imminent 
peril  of  their  lives,  concealed  the  infant  Jehoash,  and  kept  him 
concealed  till  the  day  that  he  brought  him  out  and  cro'^vned 
him  king.  During  these  six  years  his  oaati  life  and  that  of 
the  child  both  hung  upon  a  thread  that  was  liable  to  break 
at  any  moment.  And  when,  at  last,  he  had  crowned  the  child, 
and  brought  about  the  death  of  Athaliah,  it  w^ould  be  idle  to 
suppose  tliat  he  was  out  of  danger.  If  Athaliah  had  any 
friends,  and  she  certainly  had  among  those  who  had  followed 
her  in  the  worship  of  Baal,  they  necessarily  looked  upon  Je- 
hoiada as  a  usurper,  if  not  an  assassin,  and  might  be  suspected 
constantly  of  conspiring  against  him.  Had  he  added  to  these 
enemies  all  the  worshipers  at  the  high  places,  together  with 
the  priests  who  served  at  these  altars  and  gained  their  liveli- 
hood by  it,  he  and  the  young  king  might  have  perished  after 
all.  Had  the  latter  been  slain  in  his  boyhood,  the  house  of 
David  would  have  been  brought  to  an  end,  and  the  promise 
of  God  to  David  would  have  been  broken.  Well  might  the 
good  priest,  then,  be  contented  with  what  he  did  accomplish 
until  the  king  whom  he  had  saved  could  take  the  reins  of 
government  into  his  o^vn  hands. 

Before  we  can  accept  the  closing  statement  of  the  extract 
last  made  from  Professor  Smith,  that  until  the  time  of  Josiah 
the  high  places  were  not  known  to  be  any  breach  of  the  relig- 
ious constitution  of  Israel,  two  questions  must  be  satisfactorily 
answered:  Pirst,  Why  does  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings 


THE   BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  167 

reproach  every  good  king  of  Jiidali,  from  Asa  to  Hezekiab,  for 
not  destroying  the  high  places  ?  The  answer  usually  given, 
that  this  author  wrote  after  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  dis- 
covered, and  throws  back  what  he  learned  from  that  book  into 
the  earlier  history,  is  to  prefer  a  charge  which  has  no  shadow 
of  proof.  It  is  to  bring  this  charge  against  an  author  who 
had  a  better  opportunity  to  know  the  facts  in  the  case  than 
has  any  modern  critic.  On  the  critical  hypothesis  of  the  late 
date  of  Deuteronomy,  this  author  would  have  known  whence 
he  obtained  his  own  knowledge  that  the  high  places  were  un- 
lawful, and  he  wo'uld  have  known  perfectly,  what  the  modern 
critic  can  only  conjecturally  assert,  that  the  historical  docu- 
ments anterior  to  the  discovery  of  Deuteronomy  which  he  used 
in  compiling  his  history  contained  not  a  hint  of  unlawfulness 
in  the  high  places ;  and  to  have  written  about  them  as  he  does 
would  have  been  deliberately  falsifying  the  record.  If  the 
evident  honesty  of  the  author  is  not  sufficient  to  protect  him 
from  such  a  charge,  he  should  be  at  least  protected  by  the 
absence  of  any  motive  for  such  perversity.  No  critic  has  yet 
pointed  out,  even  conjecturally,  such  a  motive.  Until  one  is 
found,  and  until  its  existence  in  the  mind  of  the  author  is  dean- 
onstrated,  let  the  tongue  of  detraction  be  silenced. 

The  second  question  to  be  answered  by  those  who  deny  that 
the  high  places  were  known  to  be  unlawful  till  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  was  brought  out  by  Hilkiah,  is  this :  Why,  then, 
did  King  Hezekiah,  who  died  seventy-five  years  earlier,  make 
an  honest  and  persistent  effort  to  destroy  them  all  ?  The  au- 
thor of  Kings  answers  this  question  indirectly,  but  explicitly, 
when  he  says:  "He  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of 
Jehovah,  according  to  all  that  his  father  David  had  done.  He 
removed  the  high  places,  and  brake  the  pillars,  and  cut  down 
the  Asherah :  and  he  brake  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent  that 
Moses  had  made;  for  unto  those  days  the  children  of  Israel 
did  bum  incense  to  it ;  and  he  called  it  N^ehushtan  [a  piece  of 
brass].  He  trusted  in  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel;  so  that 
after  him  there   was   none  like  him   among  all  the  kings   of 


168  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Judali,  nor  among  them  that  were  before  him"  (II.  Kings  xviii. 
1-5).  Here  the  answer  is  given  and  repeated,  that  the  rea- 
son why  he  removed  the  high  places,  and  broke  up  other  abuser 
of  a  similar  character,  was  because  he  trusted  in  Jehovah, 
doing  that  which  was  right  in  his  eyes.  Undo'ubtedly,  then, 
unless  we  here  again  charge  the  author  of  Kings  with  false  rep- 
resentation, Hezekiah  knew  that  the  high  places  were  not  right 
in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah ;  and  this  he  could  not  have  knoiwn  with- 
out Jehovah's  law  on  the  subject. 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  evidence  for  the  late  date  of 
Deuteronomy  which  destructive  critics  claim  to  find  in  the  older 
historical  books.  We  have  found  none  that  is  really  such,  but 
much  of  the  so-called  evidence  the  bearing  of  which  is  in  the 
oj)posite  direction.  In  view  of  the  extreme  fallaciousness  of 
these  arguments,  it  is  startling  to  read  at  the  close  of  the  lec- 
ture from  which  we  have  quoted,  this  statement: 

In  truth  the  people  of  Jehovah  never  lived  under  the  law,  and 
the  dispensation  of  divine  grace  never  followed  its  pattern,  till  Israel 
had  ceased  to  be  a  nation.  The  history  of  Israel  refuses  to  be  meas- 
ured by  the  traditional  theory  as  to  the  origin  and  function  of  the 
Pentateuch  (0.  T.,  277). 

This  statement  would  be  unaccountable  but  for  the  well- 
known  eiase  with  which  acute  minds,  when  committed  to  a  tlie- 
ory,  can  deceive  themselves. 

§8.  Evidence  fkom  the  Eaely  Pkophets. 

It  is  argued  with  the  greatest  confidence  by  destructive 
critics  that  the  prophets  who  lived  and  wrote  befoire  the  Baby- 
lonian exile,  betray  such  ignorance  of  the  Levitical  law  as  dem- 
onstrates its  non-existence,  and  such  ig-norance  of  the  distinctive 
laws  of  Deuteronomy  as  demonstrateis  its  non-existence  till  its 
discovery  by  Hilkiah.  W.  Robertson  Smith,  following  close 
in  the  track  of  Wellhausen,  presents  the  argument  so  elabo- 
rately that  we  shall  let  him  be,  in  the  main,  our  guida  His 
proposition,  in  its  briefest  and  most  comprehensive  form,  is 
this : 

The  theology  of  the  prophets  before  Ezekiel  has  no  place  for 
priestly  sacrifice  and  ritual  (0.  T.,  295). 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  169 

He  (loos  not  hold  tliat  tlie  propliets  had  "any  objection  to 
sacrifice  and  ritual  in  the  abstract,"  but  he  claims  that  "they 
deny  that  those  things  are  of  positive  divine  institution,  or  have 
any  part  in  the  scheme  on  which  Jehovah's  grace  is  admiuis- 
tered  in  Israel.  Jehovah,  they  say,  has  not  enjoined  sacrifiee" 
{ih.).  Wellhausen.  goes  further,  and  says:  "The  prophet 
(Hosea)  had  never  once  dreamed  of  the  possibility  of  cultus 
being  made  the  subject  of  Jehovah's  directions"  (quoted  by 
Baxter  in  Sanctuary  and  Sacrifice,  179).  Again  Wellhausen 
says:  "According  to  the  universal  opinion  of  the  pre>-exilic 
period,  the  cultus  is  indeed  of  very  old  (to  the  people),  very 
sacred  usage,  but  not  a  Mosaic  institutiotn"  {ih.,  180). 

In  order  to  make  good  these  assertions,  our  critics  begin 
with  Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  pass  on  to  the  writing  prophets, 
Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Micah  and  Jeremiah,  in  order. 

1.  Elijah  and  Elisha.  Robertson  Smith  says  that  Elijah 
and  Elisha  "had  no  quarrel  with  the  sanctuaries  of  their  na- 
tion ;"  meaning  the  sanctuaries  of  the  calf-wo-rship  at  Bethel 
and  Dan.  And  he  gives  this  as  proof  that  neither  the  Levit- 
ical  code,  nor  the  code  of  Deuteironomy,  was  known  in  the 
northern  kingdom  (Prophets,  113).  It  is  true  that  among  the 
very  few  ^vords  quoted  from  these  two  prophets  there  is  no  al- 
lusion to  these  sanctuaries,  but  the  paucity  of  these  quota- 
tions makes  this  statement  appear  reckless.  Moreover,  if 
the  argument  is  good,  it  is  suicidal  to  him  who  offers  it; 
for  just  below,  on  the  same  page,  he  says:  "It  is  safe, 
therefore,  to  conclude  that  whatever  ancient  laws  may  have 
had  currency  in  a  written  form  must  be  sought  in  other 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  particularly  in  the  book  of  the  cove- 
nant (Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.),  which  the  Pentateuch  itself  presents  as 
an  older  code  than  those  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  Levitical 
legislation ;"  but  this  code,  as  well  as  the  Second  Co'mmand- 
ment  of  the  Decalogue  which  preceded  it,  forbade  such  idol- 
atry as  the  calf-worship,  and  our  critic's  argument  would  prove 
that  these  also  were  unknown  in  Israel.  The  argument  is  a 
boomerang. 


170  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

If  it  is  true  that  these  two  prophets,  and  especially  Eli- 
jah, had  no  quarrel  with  the  sanctuaries  referred  to,  there  is 
a  very  good  reason  for  it  that  involves  no  such  conclusion  as 
Professor  Smith  has  drawn  to  his  own  confusion.  We  are 
told  by  the  historian  that  Ahab,  "as  if  it  had  been  a  light 
thing  to  walk  in  the  sins  of  Jerobo>ani,  the  son  of  !N^ebat,  took 
to  wife  Jezebel,  the  daughter  of  Eth-baal,  king  of  the  Zidoni- 
ans,  and  went  and  served  Baal,  and  worshiped  him"  (I.  Kings 
xvi.  30,  31).  Comparatively  speaking,  it  was  "a  light  thing; ' 
for  Baal-worship  was  the  most  abominable  form  of  idolatry 
ever  known  in  Israel.  Not  only  so,  but  it  was  cultivated  in 
Ahab's  reign  to  such  an  extent  that  all  other  forms  of  wor- 
ship were  thrown  into  complete  obscurity.  Four  hundred  and 
fifty  prophets  of  Baal  were  fed  at  public  expense,  and  all  the 
prophets  of  Jehovah  were  slain  or  compelled  to  find  safety  in 
hiding.  It  was  this  gigantic  power,  backed  by  the  authority 
of  king  and  queen  and  aristocracy,  that  Elijah  assailed  sin- 
gle-handed. The  calf-worship  was,  in  his  estimation,  as  in 
that  of  Ahab,  a  very  "light  thing,"  not  to  be  thought  of  till 
this  fiercer  and  more  powerful  foe  was  disarmed.  When  a 
Western  hunter  is  fighting  hand  to  paw  a  monntain  bear,  he 
pays  little  attention  to  a  small  dog  that  may  be  snapping  at 
his  heels.  When  Saul's  kingdom  was  invaded  by  the  Philis- 
tines, he  very  quickly  turned  his  back  upon  David's  little  band, 
and  hastened  to  repel  the  more  dangerous  foe.  There  were 
perhaps  a  thousand  crimes  being  committed  in  Israel  which 
Elijah  might  have  denounced ;  and  his  silence  about  them  may 
as  well  be  used  as  proof  that  there  was  no  law  against  them ; 
but  Professor  Smith  is  himself  able  to  see  that  this  would 
be  nonsense.  While  fighting  the  one  great  fight,  on  the  re- 
sult of  which  the  very  life  of  the  nation  depended,  it  would 
have  been  folly  for  Elijah  to  divide  his  energies  by  turning 
them  against  subordinate  evils.  While  the  American  Union 
was  fighting  for  existence  during  the  great  Civil  War,  it  paid 
no  attention  to  Maximilian's  attempt  to  establish  a  monarchy 
in  Mexico.     Was  this  because  the  Monroe  doctrine  was  not 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  171 

yet  in  existence^  So  some  future  Eobertson  Smith  may  ar- 
gue. 

Wellhausen,  whom  Smith  follows  in  the  main,  but  soone- 
times  contradicts,  declares  that  Elijah  and  Elisha  were  '^ac- 
tual  champions  of  the  Jehovah  of  Bethel  and  Dan,  and  did 
not  think  of  protesting  against  his  pictorial  representation" 
(ProL,  283).-'^'^  This  is  to  assume  that  they  knew  nothing  of 
the  Decalogue  and  the  book  of  the  covenant,  while  Smith  says, 
as  quoted  above,  that  they  did.  It  is,  moreover,  an  assertion 
that  these  prophets  were  "actual  champions"  of  something  that 
they  never  said  a  word  about.  One  might  as  truthfully  say 
that  Wellhausen  is  an  actual  champion  of  the  free  and  unlim- 
ited coinage  of  silver  in  the  United  States,  and  prove  it  by  his 
Prolegomena,  in  which  he  says  nothing  about  it. 

But  Wellhausen  attempts  to  support  his  startling  assertion 
by  arguing  that  if  it  were  not  so,  Elijah  at  Mount  Carmel, 
instead  of  the  alternative,  "If  Baal  is  God,  serA'e  him,  and 
if  Jehovah  is  God,  serve  him,"  would  have  proposed  choice 
between  three,  Jehovah,  Baal  and  the  calf!  What  we  have 
said  above  about  the  complete  j)i^dominance  of  Baal-worship 
at  the  time,  shows  that  this  would  have  been  ridiculous.  As 
well  demand  of  the  spectators  of  the  supposed  fight  between  the 
man  and  the  bear,  which  will  win,  the  man,  the  bear,  or  the 
little  dog?  The  little  dog,  as  the  boys  out  West  would  say, 
"isn't  in  it ;"  and  the  calf  "wasn't  in  it"  in  the  reign  of  Ahab. 

2.  The  Prophet  Amos.  Of  this  prophet  the  same  assertion 
Is  made  as  of  Elijah  and  Elisha :  "Amos,"  says  Robertson 
Smith,  "never  speaks  of  the  golden  calves  as  the  sin  of  the 
northern  sanctuaries,  and  he  has  only  one  or  two  allusions  to  the 
worship  of  false  gods  or  idolatrous  symbols"  (Prophets,  140). 

This  statement  is  true,  but  as  respects  the  question  at  issue 
it  is  evasive  and  misleading.       It  is  true  that  Amos  never  men- 


"  Kuenen  inclines  to  the  same  preposterous  assumption,  but  he 
expresses  himself  more  cautiously:  "Their  attitude  toward  the  bull- 
worship  was  not  the  same  as  that  of  their  successors:  rather  must 
we  infer  from  the  narratives  concerning  them  and  the  kings  who 
ruled  under  their  influence,  that  they  either  approved  of  it,  or,  at  all 
events,  did  not  oppose  it"  (Rel.  of  Israel,  I.  221). 


172  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

tions  the  golden  calves  at  all,  and  of  course  he  does  not  speak 
of  thetm  *'as  the  sin  of  the  northern  sanctuaries."  But  he 
does  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing.  He  denounces  in  un- 
qualified terms  the  sin  of  the  worship  paid  those  calves.  He 
says:  "Hear  ye,  and  testify  against  the  house  of  Jacoh,  saith 
the  Lord  God,  the  God  of  hosts.  For  in  the  day  that  I  shall 
visit  the  transgressions  of  Israel  upon  him,  I  will  also  visit 
the  altars  of  Bethel,  and  the  horns  of  the  altar  shall  be  cut  off, 
and  fall  to  the  ground"  (iii.  13,  14).  The  altars  of  Bethel 
were  the  altars  on  which  sacrifice  was  offered  to  the  golden 
calf.  Herein  lay  the  sin.  The  calf  was  nothing  but  tihe 
image  of  a  dumb  brute,  and  the  making  of  it  was  in  itself  no 
sin.  The  sin  was  in  worshiping  it,  and  this  was  done  by 
means  of  the  aJtar.  The  altar  was  then  the  object  for  the 
prophet  to  denounce  in  denouncing  the  woTship  of  the  calf. 

Arain  the  prophet  exclaims:  "Come  to  Bethel,  and  trans- 
gress; to  Gilgal,  and  multiply  transgression;  and  bring  your 
sacrifices  every  morning,  and  your  tithes  every  three  days ;  and 
offer  a  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  of  that  which  is  leavened :  for 
this  liketh  you,  O  ye  children  of  Israel,  saith  Jehovah"  (iv.  4, 
5).  What  severer  satire  could  be  uttered  against  the  whole  of 
the  worship  at  Bethel  ?  The  whole  of  it  was  transgression. 
The  mention  of  Gilgal  implies  that  the  same  unlawful  worship 
had  been  extended  to  that  place  since  Jeroboam  first  set  up  the 
calf  at  Bethel. 

Again  the  prophet  exclaims:  "Thus  saith  Jehovah  to  the 
house  of  Israel,  Seek  ye  me,  and  ye  shall  live:  but  seek  not 
Bethel,  nor  enter  into  Gilgal,  and  pass  not  to  Beer-sheba :  for 
Gilgal  shall  surely  go  into  captivity,  and  Bethel  shall  come  to 
nought.  Seek  Jehovah,  and  ye  shall  live;  lest  he  break  O'ut 
like  fire  in  the  house  of  Joseph,  and  there  be  none  to  quench  it 
in  Bethel"  (v.  4-6).  Here  it  is  made  as  plain  as  words  can 
make  it,  that  the  worship  at  these  sanctuaries  was  not  the  wor- 
ship of  Jehovah ;  and  the  people  are  entreated,  as  they  would 
save  themselves  from  burning,  to  stop  seeking  these  sanctua- 
ries, and,  in  contrast  therewith,  to  seek  Jehovah. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  173 

It  is  here  woTtlij  of  reauark  that  Robertson  Smith,  while 
seeming  to  set  forth  the  attitude  of  Amos  to  these  sanctuaries, 
and  making  assertions  in  direct  coiitradiction  of  these  three 
passages,  fails  to  quote  a  single  word  from  them,  either  in  his 
Prophets  of  Israel,  or  his  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church. 
We  leave  the  reader  to  aceount  ior  this  as  best  he  can.  Ko 
one  can  claim  that  the  scientific,  the  inductive  method,  which 
takes  into  view  all  the  facts  before  reaching  a  conclusioin,  is 
here  observed. 

Onoe  again  we  hear  this  same  prophet,  w^ho  never  speaks 
against  golden  calves,  addressing  the  woirshipers  before  them 
in  Jehovah's  name,  and  exclaiming:  "I  hate,  I  despise  your 
feasts,  and  I  will  take  no  delight  in  your  solemn  assemblies. 
Yea,  though  you  offer  me  your  burnt  offerings,  and  meal 
offerings,  I  will  not  accept  theiu:  neither  will  I  regard  the 
peace  offerings  of  your  fat  beasts.  Take  away  from  me  the 
noise  of  thy  songs;  for  I  will  not  hear  the  melody  of  thy  viols, 
but  let  judgeiment  roll  down  like  waters,  and  righteousness  as 
a  mighty  stream"  (v.  21-24).  Thus,  again,  the  whole  system 
of  worship  at  these  sanctuaries,  even  those  parts  which  are  au- 
thorized in  the  Levitical  law  and  in  Deuteronomy  when  of- 
fered to  Jehovah,  is  denounced  as  hateful  to  him.  What  a 
comment  on  Wellhausen's  assertion  that  in  fighting  for  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  Elijah  was  a  champion  of  the  Jehovah 
of  Bethel  and  Dan !  And  what  a  comment  on  the  assertion  of 
Robertson  Smith,  that  Amos  never  speaks  of  the  golden  calves 
as  the  sin  of  the  northern  sanctuaries ! 

Another  passage  in  Amos  onr  critics  never  fail  to  quote ; 
yet  it  is  not  another  passage,  but  the  concluding  part  of  the 
one  last  cited:  "Did  ye  bring  unto  me  sacrifices  and  offerings 
forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  O  house  of  Israel  ?  Yea,  ye 
have  borne  Siccutli  your  king  and  Chiun  your  images,  the 
star  of  your  god,  which  ye  made  to  yourselves"  (v.  25,  26). 
The  question  here  propounded  naturally  requires  a  negative 
answer,  and  upon  this  presuanption  Professor  Smith  remarks: 
"Amos  proves  God's  indifference  to  ritual  by  reminding  Israel 


\1i  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

that  they  offered  no  sacrifice  and  offerings  to  him  in  the  wil- 
derness during  those  forty  years  of  wanderings,  which  he  else- 
where cites  as  a  special  proof  of  Jehovah's  covenant  grace" 
(294).  This  is  to  assume  that  Amos'  question  requires  an 
absolute  negative — that  they  offered  no  sacrifices  at  all  in  the 
wilderness.  If  we  suppose  this  to  be  tnie,  it  falls  far  short 
of  proving  that  God  was  indifferent  to  ritual ;  for  their  failure 
might  have  been  the  result  of  willful  disoibedience;  or  it  might 
have  resulted  from  the  want  of  animals.  They  certainly  had 
but  few  animals,  not  even  enough  for  a  month's  supply  of  food ; 
for  when  God  told  Moses  that  he  would  give  the  people  flesh 
to  eat  for  a  month,  the  latter  demanded,  "Shall  flocks  and  herds 
be  slain  for  them  to  suffice  them  ?  or  shall  all  the  fish  of  the 
sea  be  gathered  together  for  them  to  suffice  them?"  (Xmn.  xi. 
18-22).  Moreover,  they  repeatedly  murmured  for  flesh  to  eat, 
and  th,is  is  sufficient  proof  tbat  they  could  have  brought  few, 
if  any,  voluntary  offerings  to  the  altar.  The  record  in  Letviticus 
and  N^umbers  indicates  that  when  the  tabernacle  was  standing, 
the  regular  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  of  a  lamb  was  kept 
up,  but  evem  this  was  omitted  when  the  host  was  on  the  move 
day  by  day,  and  no  regular  encampment  was  formed.  Now, 
Amos'  question  certainly  admits  of  a  comparative  answer.  The 
people  may  have  said,  when  he  propounded  it,  I^o;  we  offered 
few,  if  any;  and  at  the  most  we  offered  none  in  comj>arison 
with  the  multitude  of  victims  that  ^ve  are  now  bringing  to  the 
altars  at  Bethel,  Gilgal,  Dan  and  Beer-sheba.  This  is  precisely 
the  answer  that  would  have  been  given  if  the  contents  of  Levit- 
icus and  ]*^umbers  weire  }>erfectly  well  known  to  the  people, 
and  on  the  same  supposition  it  meets  completely  the  demands 
of  the  prophet.  He  is  showing  the  people  that  the  j^resent 
superfluity  of  their  sacrifices  was  not  needed  in  order  to  gain 
the  favor  of  God,  and  he  proves  it  by  the  comparative  absence 
of  these  in  the  wilderness  where  God  favored  them  more  con- 
spicuously than  ever  before  or  since,  and  where  all  sacrifices 
were  offered  to  Jehovah. 

We  now  see  that  the  attempt  to  extract  from  the  Book  of 
Amos  proof  of  the  late  date  of  the  Levitical  law  and  of  the 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTEROA'OMY.  175 

Book  of  DcTiteronoiny  is  a  failure ;  and  that,  like  the  most  of 
arguments  iu  favor  of  a  bad  cause,  it  is  characterized  by  sup- 
pressing some  of  tlLO  evidence  and  misconstruing  the  rest.  "  We 
shall  see,  in  another  part  of  tliis  work,  very  clear  evidence  that 
Amos  did  know  the  law,  and  that  tJie  image- wors'hiping  Israel- 
ites were  not  ignoirant  of  it.      (Part  II.,  §0.) 

3.  Hosea.  The  allusions  of  Amos  to  the  transgressions  at 
Bethel,  at  Gilgal  and  Beer-sheba  are  equally  explicit  with  those 
of  Hosea ;  and  yet,  while  denying  that  tJie  former  ever  spoke 
in  condemnation  of  the  calves  that  were  worehiped  at  these 
places,  it  is  freely  admitted  that  the  latter  did.  This  is  a 
freak  of  criticism  that  is  hard  to  be  understood ;  for  the  only 
difference  is  that  Hosea  names  the  calves,  while  x\mos  makes 
unmistakable  allusions  to  them.     Robertson  Smith  says: 

There  is  no  feature  in  Hosea's  prophecy  which  distinguishes  him 
from  earlier  prophets  so  sharply  as  his  attitude  to  the  golden  calves, 
the  local  symbols  of  Jehovah  adored  in  the  northern  sanctuaries. 
Elijah  and  Elisha  had  no  quarrel  with  the  traditional  worship  of  their 
nation.  Even  Amos  never  speaks  in  condemnation  of  the  calves;  bu: 
in  Hosea's  teaching  they  suddenly  appear  as  the  very  root  of  Israel'? 
sin  and  misery.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  in  the  time  of  Hosea,  as  iu 
that  of  Amos,  the  oath  of  the  worshipers  at  Gilgal  and  Bethel  was 
"by  the  life  of  Jehovah"  (iv.  15) ;  the  feasts  of  the  Baalim  were  Jeho- 
vah's feasts  (ii.  11,  13;  ix.  5) ;  the  sanctuary  was  Jehovah's  house  (ix. 
4);  the  sacrifices,  his  offerings  (viii.  13).  But  to  Hosea's  judgment 
this  ostensible  Jehovah  worship  was  really  the  worship  of  other  gods 
(iii.  1).  With  the  calves  Jehovah  has  nothing  in  common  (Prophets, 
175,  176). 

On  another  page  he  says : 

Jehovah  was  not  formally  abjured  for  the  Canaanite  gods;  but  in 
the  decay  of  all  the  nobler  impulses  of  national  life,  he  sank  in  popu- 
lar conception  to  their  level;  in  essential  character  as  well  as  in  name, 
the  calves  of  the  local  sanctuaries  had  become  Canaanite  Baalim,  mere 
sources  of  the  physical  fertility  of  the  land  (174). 

If  this  is  true,  and  if,  as  said  above,  in  the  time  of  AmO'S, 
as  in  that  of  Hosea,  the  popular  worship  was  only  ''nominally" 
Je^hovah.  worship,  how  shameful  it  is  to  represent  Amos  as 
having  no  condemnation  for  it,  and  Elijah  as  having  no  quarrel 
with  it!  The  sudden  appearance  in  Hosea  of  the  calves  as 
"the  very  root  of  Israel's  sin  and  misery,"  is  but  the  sudden 
appearance  of  gross  injustice  done  by  critics  to  these  two  ear- 
lier prophets. 


176  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

But,  while  freely  admitting,  and  even  insisting,  that  llosca 
had  a  quarrel  with  the  calves,  our  professor  sees  no  evidence 
in  this  that  Hosea  had  any  knowledge  of  the  law.  He  says: 
"If  the  pro'phecy  of  Hosea  stood  alone,  it  would  be  reasonable 
to  think  that  this  attack  on  the  images  of  the  popular  religion 
was  simply  based  on  the  Second  Commandment."  So  it 
w^ould,  and  so  it  does.  *'But,"  says  Smith,  "when  we  con- 
trast it  with  the  absolute  silence  of  the  earlier  prophets,  we 
can  hardly  accept  this  explanation  as  adequate"  (176).  He 
ought  to  have  said.  The  absolute  silence  of  Robertson  Smith; 
for,  as  I  have  plainly  showed  above,  he  is  absolutely  silent  in 
regard  to  all  those  passages  in  Amos  in  which  the  latter  calls 
the  people  to  come  to  Bethel  and  transgress,  to  Gilgal  and 
multiply  transgression,  etc.  Amos  speaks  plainly  enough,  and 
often  enough  in  his  own  book,  but  he  is  gagged  and  made  ab- 
solutely silent  on  this  point  in  W.  Eobertson  Smith's  Proph- 
ets of  Israel. 

Persisting  in  this  denial,  he  says  on  the  netxt  page  (177)  : 

Hosea  does  not  condemn  the  worship  of  the  calves,  because  idols 
are  forbidden  by  the  law;  he  excludes  the  calves  from  the  sphere  of 
true  religion,  because  the  worship  which  they  receive  has  no  affinity 
to  the  true  attitude  of  Israel  to  Jehovah. 

If  Professor  Smith  were  still  alive,  it  would  be  pertinent 
to  ask  him  how  he  knows  all  this.  Where  in  the  Book  of  Ho- 
sea does  he  give  the  latter  reason  for  excluding  the  calves? 
And  when  we  find  a  projAet  of  Jehovah  who  knew  the  second 
commandment  of  the  law,  as  he  admits  that  Hosea  did,  de- 
nouncing the  wors:hip  of  idols,  how  can  he  dare  to  say  that  the 
prophet  does  not  condemn  this  worship  because  it  is  forbid- 
den  by  the  law^?  The  truth  is  that  neither  he  nor  any  other 
man  who  ever  lived  has  kno^^^l,  or  could  know,  that  it  is  sin- 
ful to  worship  Jehovah  under  the  symbol  of  calves,  without 
a  la^v  forbidding  it.  Roman  Catholics  have  not  learned  that 
it  is  wrong  to  worship  Christ  by  bowing  before  a  crucifix,  even 
though  they  have  been  reading  for  a  thousand  years  the  ex- 
press prohibition  of  such  worship  in  the  Scriptures. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY  177 

This  denial  is  not  only  irrational  in  itself,  but  it  is  incon- 
sistemt  with  -w-liat  Ilosea  says  of  the  law.  In  the  beginning 
of  his  special  denunciation  of  this  sinful  worship,  he  says:  ''My 
people  are  de&troyed:  becaiiso  thoai  hast  rejected  knowledge,  I 
will  also  reject  thee,  that  thou  ahalt  be  no  more  priest  to  me : 
seeing  thou  hast  forgotten  the  law  of  thy  God,  I  also  will  for- 
get thy  children"  (iv.  6).  Here  the  knowledge  which  they 
lacked,  the  knowledge  which  they  had  rejected,  is  proved  by 
tbe  collocation  of  the  clauses  to  be  the  knowledge  of  the  law 
of  their  God ;  and  the  charge,  "Thou  hast  forgotten  the  law 
of  thy  God,"  shows  tha,t  they  had  formerly  known  it.  A  few 
verses  below  he  adds:  "They  shall  commit  whoredom,  and  shall 
not  increase :  because  they  have  left  off  to  take  heed  to  Jeho- 
vah" (verse  10),  They  had  ceased  to  take  heed  to  Jehovah 
by  forgetting  and  rejecting  the  knowledge  of  his  law.  Words 
could  not  make  it  plainer  that  they  had  formerly  kno^\ai  the 
law  of  God.  Again,  speaking  for  God,  he  says:  "I  desire 
mercy,  and  not  sacrifice;  and  knowledge  of  God  more  than 
burnt  offerings"  (vi,  6).  The  first  clause  of  this  sentence, 
as  is  proved  by  the  parallel  in  the  second,  is  an  example  of 
the  well-known  hebraism  of  an  absolute  negative  where  the  rel- 
ative is  meant ;  and  it  means,  "I  desire  mei'cy  more  than  sac- 
rifice." He  desires  sacrifice,  and  he  desires  burnt  offerings; 
but  he  esteems  mercy  toward  their  fellow  men,  and  knowledge 
of  himself,  more  highly  than  either.  This  is  also  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ,  who  adopted  these  woTds  of  Hosea  on  two  dif- 
ferent occasions  (Matt,  ix,  13;  xii.  7).  But  the  knowledge 
of  God,  without  which  they  would  have  no  incentive  to  mercy, 
was  derived  only  from  his  law,  another  proof  that  they  had 
once  possessed  the  law,  but  had  rejected  and  forgotten  it. 

Finally  Hosea,  speaking  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  covers  the 
whole  ground  by  the  well-known  words:  "Because  Ephraim 
hath  multiplied  altars  to  sin,  altars  have  been  unto  him  to  sin. 
Though  I  write  for  him  my  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts,  they 
are  counted  as  a  strange  thing"  (viii.  11,  12).  Here  is  an 
unquestionable  reference  to  written  law ;  and  the  clause  "they 
are  counted  as  a  strange  thing,"  is  equivalent  to  the  rejecting 


178  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

and  the  forgetting  of  tlie  law  in  tJie  previous  citations.  This 
clause,  moreover,  being  expressed  in  the  present  tense,  shows 
that  the  writing  spoken  of  had  already  taken  place.  The 
first  clause,  then,  can  not  mean,  "though  I  should  write  my 
law."  x<[either  can  the  clause  mean,  ''though  I  am  writing 
my  law."  It  is  a  law  which  had  been  written.  The  alter- 
native rendering  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  brings 
out  this  thought-  "I  wrote  foi-  him  the  ten  thousand  things 
of  my  law,  but  they  are  counted  as  a  strange  thing."  The 
connection  of  this  sentence  with  the  jjreceding,  "Because 
Ephraim  hath  multiplied  altars  to  sin,  altars  have  been  unto 
liim  to  sin,"  shows  that  the  sin  of  these  altars  is  the  one 
chiefly  referred  to  as  counting  the  written  la,w  a  strange  thing. 
The  position  taken  by  the  destructive  critics  is  so  com- 
pletely overthrown  by  the  evidence  in  these  passages,  that  they 
have  taxed  their  ingenuity  to  the  uttermost  in  seeking  to  at- 
tach to  them  a  different  meaning.  The  Hebrew  woird  ren- 
dered "law"  is  torah;  and  we  are  gravely  told  that  in  these 
early  prophets  it  means,  not  a  written  law,  but  the  oral  teach- 
ing of  the  prophets.  ''Torah/'  says  Kobertson  Smith,  "is  the 
living  prophetic  word."  And  again  he  says:  "The  torah  is 
not  yet  a  finished  and  complete  system,  booked  and  reduced 
to  a  code,  but  a  living  word  in  the  mouth  of  the  prophets" 
(0.  T.,  300).^^  But  where  was  th.is  "living  word  in  the  mouth 
of  the  prophets,"  by  which,  the  calf-worship  had  been  so  se- 
verely condemned  ?       Just  three  prophets  had  figiired  in  Israel 


'*  With  this  Kuenen  agrees,  but  he  modifies  the  thought  by  add- 
ing: "Nothing  hinders  us  from  even  assuming  that  they  had  also 
in  view  collections  of  laws  and  admonitions  to  which  a  higher  an- 
tiquity or  even  a  Mosaic  origin  was  attributed"  (Rel.  of  Israel.  I-  56). 
Wellhausen  differs  from  Kuenen  at  this  point.  He  says:  "It  is  cer- 
tain that  Moses  was  the  founder  of  the  Torah;"  but  he  explains  it  by 
adding:  "In  fact,  it  can  be  shown  that  throughout  the  whole  of  the 
older  period  the  Torah  was  no  finished  legislative  code,  but  consisted 
entirely  of  the  oral  decisions  and  instructions  of  the  priests"  (Is- 
rael," Encyc.  Brit.,  p.  409,  c.  2).  He  escapes  the  absurdity  of  re- 
ferring it  to  prophets,  when  there  were  none  before  Amos  and  Hosea 
to  promulgate  laws,  but  in  doing  so  he  stands  against  his  fellow  crit- 
ics, who  deny  that  there  was  a  regular  priesthood  in  "the  older  period" 
of  which  he  speaks. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  179 

since  the  calves  w^re  set  up;  and  with  reference  to  them  Pro- 
fessor Smith  has  already  dug  away  tlie  ground  from  under  his 
own  feet,  by  saying  that  Elijah  and  Elisha  had  no  quarrel  with 
the  calf-worship,  and  that  Amo6  said  nothing  against  it. 
Where,  then,  is  the  torali,  the  "living  word  in  the  mouth  of  the 
prophets,"  to  which  Ilosea  appeals  ?  It  vanishes  into  thin  air 
as  soon  as  you  make  the  inquiry. 

On  another  page  (303)  Professor  Smith  says  that  when 
Hosea  says  to  the  priests,  '"Thou  hast  forgotten  the  tonih  oi 
tliy  God"  (Hos.  iv.  6),  it  "^can  not  fairly  be  doubted  that  the 
iorah  which  the  priests  have  forgotten  is  the  Mosaic  toraJi;" 
but  he  still  denies  that  it  was  written.  He  says,  "It  is  simplo 
inatter  of  fact  that  the  prophets  do  not  refer  to  a  written  torah 
as  the  basis  of  their  teaching,  and  we  have  seen  that  they  abso- 
lutely deny  the  existence  of  a  binding  ritual  law"  (302).  But 
if  Ilosea  appealed  to  a  torah  in  his  denunciation  of  the  calf- 
worship,  whether  a  "living  word  in  the  mouth  of  the  proph- 
ets," or  a  traditional  forali  transmitted  orally  from  Moses, 
this  torah  must  of  necessity  have  been  moa-e  or  less  of  a  ritual 
character,  in  that  it  condemned  the  worship  of  the  calves.  The 
light  or  the  wrong  of  worshiping  Jehovah,  or  any  other  god, 
under  the  sjanbol  of  calves,  is  a  question  of  ritual,  and  noth- 
ing else.  Unwittingly,  then,  in  the  very  act  of  affirming  that 
the  prophets  "absolutely  deny  the  existence  of  a  binding  rit- 
ual law,"  our  critics  prove  that  they  reco'gnized  one.  Such 
is  the  self-contradiction  in  which  this  form  of  criticism  re- 
peatedly involves  itself. 

While  Smith,  in  common  with  his  German  teachers,  thus 
boldly  denies  that  the  prophets  refer  to  a  written  torah  as  the 
basis  of  their  teaching,  here  comes  Prof.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  more 
radical  in  some  respects  than  he,  to  flatly  contradict  him.  In 
bis  introduction  to  the  Book  of  Ilosea  {Cambridge  Bible  for 
Schools),  he  makes  the  following  statements: 

All  that  is  certain  in  regard  to  Hosea's  relation  to  the  law,  is  what 
he  tells  us  himself;  viz.:  that  laws  with  a  sanction  which,  though 
ignored  by  the  northern  Israelites,  he  himself  recognized  as  divine, 
were  in  course  of  being  written   down    (viii.   12).     Our   present  text 


180  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

makes  him  even  say  that  the  divine  precepts  might  be  reckoned  by 
myriads,  but  this  would  not  apply  even  to  our  present  Pentateuch,  and 
we  should  probably  correct  ribbo,  "myriad,"  into  dibhre,  "words"  (of 
my  law).  There  may,  of  course,  either  have  been  various  small  law- 
books, or  one  large  one;  we  can  not  determine  this  point  from  the 
Book  of  Hosea   (36,  37). 

It  is  morally  certain  that  so  radical  a  critic  as  Cheyne  is 
known  to  be,  would  not  have  made  this  admission  in  opi3osi- 
tion  to  his  fellow  critics  had  he  not  been  constrained  to  do  so 
by  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  in  making  this  conces- 
sion, Professor  Cheyne  is  by  no  means  willing  to  concede  that 
the  written  law-book  referred  to  by  Hosea  could  have  been  our 
Pentateuch ;  and  his  reason  for  holding  that  it  was  not,  is  curi- 
oius  einough.  It  is,  that  the  exact  tenm  "myriads"  could  not 
apply  to  our  present  Pentateuch.  I  suppose  that  no  one  pre- 
tends that  in  its  literal  sense  it  could;  but  when  Hosea  speaks 
of  God's  law  as  being  written  in  ten  thousand  precepts,  whore 
is  the  simpleton  who  ever  supposed  that  he  used  the  nmneral 
literally?  But,  further,  if  this  huge  numeral  could  not  ap- 
ply to  the  precepts  of  the  Pentateuch,  what  about  the  pre- 
cepts in  his  "various  small  law-books"  ?  Had  they  as  many 
written  precepts  as  we  find  in  our  present  Pentateuch  ?  'No 
critic  will  answeir  yes.  Then,  why  try  to  cut  off  the  head  of 
the  Pentateuch  with  a  knife  which,  in  the  very  attempt,  cuts 
off  the  critic's  own  head  ? 

4.  Isaiah.  In  further  proof  that  "the  theology  of  the  proph- 
ets before  Ezekiel  has  no  place  for  the  system  of  priestly  sac- 
rifice and  ritual,"  Prof.  Kobertson  Smith  quotes  a  well-known 
passage  in  the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah ;  and  he  quotes  it  as  fol- 
lows : 

"What  are  your  many  sacrifices  to  me,  saith  Jehovah:  I  delight  not 
in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  and  lambs,  and  hegoats.  When  ye  come  to 
see  my  face,  who  hath  asked  this  at  your  hands,  to  tread  my  courts? 
Bring  no  more  vain  oblations  .  .  .  my  soul  hateth  your  new  moons 
and  your  feasts;  they  are  a  burden  upon  me;  I  am  weary  to  bear 
them"— Isa.  i.  11,  seq.   (0.   T.,  293). 

Quoted  thus,  Isaiah  would  prove  not  merely  that  he  had 
no  place  for  the  priestly  sacrifice  and  ritual,  but  that  Jehovah 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  181 

hated  such  things,  and  rebuked  the  people  for  presenting  them 
— that  he  forbade  such  worshipers  to  ''tread  his  courts."  This 
is  to  prove  too  much ;  for  on  another  page  the  same  author  says 
that  the  prophets  have  "no  objection  to  sacrifice  and  ritual  in 
the  abstract;"  they  only  deny  that  God  has  enjoined  sacrifice 
(295). 

But  in  thus  quoting  the  passage,  a  part  is  omitted  where 
the  dots  are  printed,  which,  if  copied,  would  prove,  by  the  same 
line  of  argument,  that  Jehovah  also  hated  the  Sabbath.  It 
reads:  "Incense  is  an  abomination  to  me;  new  moon  and  sab- 
bath, the  calling  of  assemblies — I  can  not  away  with  iniquity 
and  the  solemn  meeting."  Whatever  may  be  thoiught  of  the 
new  moon  holy  day  here  mentioned,  and  of  the  solemn  meet- 
ings referred  to,  no  sane  man  can  believe  that  Isaiah,  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  held  the  Sabbath  to  be  an  abomination. 

Furthermore,  this  quotation  stops  toO'  soon.  It  leaves  out 
the  words :  "And  when  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide 
my  face  from  you:  yea,  when  you  make  many  prayers,  I  will 
not  hear."  Did  Jehovah  hate  prayer  ?  And  was  prayer 
one  of  the  ritual  observances  for  which  the  early  prophets  had 
"no  place  in  their  theology"  ?  So  it  would  seem  if  there 
i°  any  sense  in  the  use  which  Robertson'  Smith,  in  common  with 
his  fellow  critics,  makes  of  this  passage.  But  the  climax  of 
misquotation  and  misapplication  is  reached  in  omitting  the  last 
clause  of  Isaiah's  philippic,  which  explains  all  that  precedes: 
"Your  hands  are  full  of  blood !"  This  is  the  reason  which 
Jehovah  himself  gives  why  the'  sacrifices,  the  incense,  the  new 
moon  holy  days,  the  sabbath,  the  solemn  meetings  and  the 
prayers  of  that  people,  were  an  abomination  to  him.  The 
same  is  true  to-day,  and  it  ever  has  been.  If  a  church  were 
crowded  to-day  with  worshipers  whose  hands  were  full  of  blood, 
every  prayer  they  could  offer,  and  every  hymn  they  could  sing, 
would  be  as  abominable  as  were  those  denounced  by  Isaiah. 
It  is  therefore  a  fearful  abomination  to  employ  these  words 
of  the  prophet  as  if  the  specified  acts  of  worship,  when  rightly 
remdered  from  clean  hands  and  pure  hearts,  were  hateful  to 
Jehovah.       It  is  high  time  that  this  perversion  of  Jehovah's 


182  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

words,  first  invented  by  the  enemies  of  the  Bible,  were  aban- 
doned by  those  who  profess  to  be  its  friends. 

Immediately  after  quoting  this  passage  in  his  own  way,  to- 
gether with  one  from  Amos,  which  we  have  noticed,  Robertson 
Smith  says:  "It  is  sometimes  argued  that  such  passages  mean 
only  that  Jehovah  will  not  accept  the  sacrifices  of  the  wicked, 
and  that  they  are  quite  consistent  with  a  belief  that  sacrifice 
and  ritual  are  a  necessary  accompaniment  of  true  religion. 
But  thei-e  are  otber  texts  which  absolutely  exclude  such  a  view." 
We  shall  examine  these  other  texts. 

5.  Micah.  The  first  of  these  which  remains  to  be  noticed 
is  the  oft-quoted  passage  in  Micah,  which  Professor  Smith  in- 
troduces thus: 

Micah  declares  that  Jehovah  does  not  require  sacrifice.  He  asks 
nothing  of  his  people  but  "to  do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and  walk 
humbly  with  their  God"— Mic.  vi.  8   (ib.,  294). 

We  shall  best  understand  the  passage  by  having  the  whole 
of  it  before  the  eye  at  once:  ' 'Wherewith  shall  I  come  before 
•Jehovah,  and  bow  myself  before  the  high  God  ?  Shall  I  come 
before  him  with  burnt  offerings,  and  wdth  calves  a  year  old  ? 
Will  Jehovah  be  pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  or  with  ten 
thousands  of  rivers  of  oil  ?  Shall  I  give  my  firstborn  for  my 
transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul  ? 
lie  hath  shewed  thee,  O  man,  what  is  good ;  and  what  doth 
Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy, 
and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?"  (Mic.  vi.  6-8). 

The  four  questions  here  expounded  by  the  prophet  require 
negative  answers.  They  all  point  to  the  one  end  brought  out 
in  the  last,  the  removal  of  "my  transgression,"  the  "sin  of  my 
soul."  The  one  point  of  inquiry  is,  when  I  come  before  Jeho- 
vah to  obtain  his  favor,  will  I  secure  it  by  burnt  offerings? 
Will  the  offering  of  even  a  thousand  rams  secure  it  ?  Will 
offerings  of  oil  secure  it,  even  if  I  offer  ten  thousand  rivers 
of  it?  Having^  failed  with  all  of  these,  can  I  secure  it  by 
offering  my  firstborn  ?  The  answer  is,  Xo.  And  this  is  the 
answer,  whether  we  think  that  the  Levitical  law  was  in  force 
at  the  time  or  not.     'No  man  of  intelligence  over  lived  under 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  188 

that  law  who  would  have  answ^reil  otherAvise.  Only  the  su- 
perstitious aud  hypocritical  under  the  Levitical  law  ever  pre- 
tended that  God's  fa  voir  to  men  depended  on  the  multitude  of 
his  sacrifices,  or  their  costliness.  The  law  itself  precluded 
any  such  pretense  by  prescribing  as  the  sin-oiffering,  whether 
for  the  sins  of  an  individual,  or  those  of  the  whole  j^eople,  only 
a  single  victim,  and  this  most  iiisually  only  a  lamb  or  a  kid.  It 
was  also  made  perfectly  plain  by  the  law  that  even  by  these 
a  man's  sins  could  not  be  removed.  The  sinner  was  required 
to  bring  the  victim  to  the  altar,  lay  his  hand  upon  its  head,  con- 
fess his  sin,  and  slay  the  victim ;  and  without  these  he  knCAV 
that  the  offering  would  be  ineffective  (Lev.  iv.  27-vi.  7). 
Seeing,  then,  that  under  the  full  sway  of  the  Levitical  law 
these  questions  would  be  pertinent,  and  would  be  answered  in 
the  negative,  it  is  absurd  to  use  them  as  proof  that  tiie  Levit- 
ical law  was  not  yet  in  existence. 

To  this  conclusive  reasoning  we  are  able  to  add  demonstra- 
tion ;  for  it  is  admitted  by  all  the  negative  critics  that  the 
law  in  Deuteronomy  recognizes  the  ritual  of  sacrifice,  and  even 
restricts  the  offering  of  sacrifices  to  the  altar  at  the  central  sanc- 
tuary; but  the  authoir  of  that  law  employs  almost  the  identi- 
cal words  of  Micah  when  he  demands:  "And  now,  Israel,  what 
doth  Jehovah  thy  God  require  of  thee,  but  to  fear  Jehovah  thy 
God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve 
Jehovah  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  all  thy  soul,  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  Jehovah,  and  his  statutes,  which  I  com- 
mand thee  this  day  for  thy  good?"  (Deut.  x.  12,  13).  Does 
the  Deuteronomist,  then,  whosoever  he  may  be,  exclude  here 
the  sacrifices  which  he  elsewhere  enjoins  ?  or  does  he  include 
them  in  walking  in  Jehovah's  ways,  serving  him,  and  keeping 
his  statutes  ?  There  is  only  one  answer.  And  how  could 
a  man,  if  he  lived  under  the  Levitical  law,  "walk  humbly  with 
his  God,"  as  Micah  requires,  mtLout  offering  such  sacrifices 
as  God's  law  required  of  him  ?  A  neglect  of  these  would  be 
pride  and  rebellion.  On  the  other  hand,  offering  a  thousand 
rams,  or  ten  thousand  rivers  of  oil,  if  it  were  possible,  would 


184  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

be  a  piece  of  vainglory,  while  offering  bis  firstborn  would  be 
heathenism. 

This  method  of  perverting  the  Scriptures  would  have  a 
parallel,  if  one  should  argue  that  Jesus,  in  saying,  "Not  every 
one  that  saith  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven,"  excludes  the  ordinance  of  baptism  from  his  re- 
quirements. It  would  be  a  stupid  fellow  indeed  who  would 
not  see  that  we  do  the  will  of  our  Father  in  heaven  in  part  by 
being  baptized.  So  the  Jew  w^alked  humbly  with  his  God 
by  offering  without  fail  for  his  sins  the  sacrifices  appointed. 

6.  Last  of  all  we  come  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah.  He  is 
constantly  quoted  by  negative  critics  as  denying  that  God  ap- 
pointed sacrifice  when  he  led  Israel  O'ut  of  Egypt.  Thus  Rob- 
ertson Smith  (0.  T.,  294) : 

Jeremiah  vii.  21,  seq.,  says  in  express  words,  "Put  your  burnt 
offerings  to  your  sacrifices,  and  eat  flesh.  For  I  spake  not  to  your 
fathers,  and  gave  them  no  command  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them 
out  of  Egypt  concerning  burnt  offerings  or  sacrifices.  But  this  thing 
I  commanded  them.  Obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye 
shall  be  my  people,  etc.   (Comp.  Isa.  xliii.  23,  seq.) 

Commenting  further  on  this  and  similar  passages.  Smith 

says: 

This  does  not  prove  that  they  (the  prophets)  have  any  objection 
to  sacrifice  and  ritual  in  the  abstract.  But  they  deny  that  these  things 
are  of  positive  divine  institution,  or  have  any  part  in  the  scheme  on 
which  Jehovah's  grace  is  administered  in  Israel.  Jehovah,  they  say, 
has  not  enjoined  sacrifice.  This  does  not  imply  that  he  has  never 
accepted  sacrifice,  or  that  ritual  service  is  absolutely  wrong.  But  it  is 
at  least  mere  form,  which  does  not  purchase  any  favor  from  Jehovah, 
and  might  be  given  up  without  offense.  It  is  impossible  to  give  a 
flatter  contradiction  to  the  traditional  theory  that  the  Levitical  system 
was  enacted  in  the  wilderness  {ib.,  295). 

(1)  If  this  is  the  real  position  of  the  prophets,  it  is  most 
unaccountable;  for  if  Jehovah  had  never  eaajoined  sacrifice  in 
his  service,  how  could  it  be  supposed  by  the  prophets,  or  by 
any  sane  person,  that  it  could  be  acceptable — that  the  daily 
slaughter  of  innocent  victims,  and  frequent  holocausts  in  which 
thousands  of  animals  were  slain  and  burned,  making  the  house 
of  God,  as  some  irreverent  skeptics  have  eixpressed  it,  a  verita- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  185 

ble  slaughter-house,  could  be  accepted  by  him  at  ajiy  time  or 
under  any  circumstances  ?  Such  will-worship  would  have 
been  met  by  every  time  prophet  of  God  with  the  rebuke  which 
Isaiah  administered  to  the  hypocrites  whose  hands  were  full  of 
blood,  and  who  yet  had  the  impudence  to  bring  a  multitude  of 
sacrifices  into  the  temple.  "Who,"  says  the  indignant  proph- 
et, ''hath  required  this  at  your  hands,  to  trample  my  courts  ?" 
(Isa.  1.  10-15).  And  how  could  Solomon,  without  rebuke, 
have  erected  his  costly  and  splendid  temple,  whose  every  ap- 
pointment was  arranged  with  reference  to  the  offering  of  sacri- 
fices, if  God  had  never  enjoined  sacrifice  as  a  part  of  his  wor- 
ship ?  The  position  is  absurd  in  the  highest  degree ;  and  if 
Jeremiah  assumed  it,  he  is  either  guilty  of  absurdity  himself, 
or  he  charges  it  upon  the  whole  host  of  Israelite  worshipers 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 

'(2)  Again,  if  Jeremiah,  or  any  of  the  prophets,  is  to  be 
thus  understood,  then  they  deny  what  all  of  our  critics  except 
the  most  radical  admit,  the  divine  origin  of  the  "book  of  the 
covenant."  For  in  that  book  we  have  this  well-known  divine 
enactment:  "An  altar  of  earth,  thou  shalt  make  unto  me,  and 
shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  thy  peace  offer- 
ings, thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen:  in  every  place  where  I  record 
my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  I  will  bless  thee.  And 
if  thou  make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build  it  of 
hewn  stones:  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  tbou  hast 
polluted  it"  (Ex.  XX.  24,  25).  Here  is  a  positive  enaetnient 
of  sacrifice,  accompanied  by  precise  directions  as  to  the  kind  of 
altar  on  wdiich  they  could  be  acceptably  offered.  Jeremiah,  if 
he  could  have  had  the  motive,  could  not  have  had  the  daring 
to  unite  with  our  modeni  critics  in  denying  that  God  had  thus 
legislated. 

(3)  It  is  admitted  by  even  the  radical  critics  that  Jere- 
miah knew  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  believed  that  it  was 
God's  law  by  the  hand  of  Moses.  But  to  understand  him  as 
denying  the  divine  enactment  of  sacrifice,  is  to  make  him  con- 
tradict  that  book  in  -^vhich  he  believed,   and  the  teaching  of 


186  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

which  he  was  zealously  assisting  King  Josiah  to  enforce  upon 
the  consciences  of  the  people.  For  this  book  represents  ]\Io- 
ses  in  the  last  year  of  the  wanderings  as  saying:  ''Unto  the 
place  which  Jeihovah  your  God  shall  choose  out  of  all  your 
tribes  to  put  his  name  there,  even  unto  his  habitation  shall 
ye  seek,  and  thither  thou  shalt  come :  and  thither  ye  shall 
bring  your  burnt  offerings,  and  your  sacrifices,  and  your  tithes, 
and  the  heave-offering  of  your  hand,  and  your  freewill  offer- 
ings, and  the  firstlings  of  your  herd  and  of  your  flock"  (xii. 
5,  6).  Our  critics  are  never  weary  of  quoting  this  passage 
when  they  are  seeking  to  prove  that  it  was  the  introduction 
of  a  law  never  before  known  in  Israel;  but  here  they  come 
with  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  in  their  hands — Jeremiah,  who  be- 
lieved in  the  divine  authority  of  this  law,  and  whose  book 
they  tell  us  is  saturated  with  reminiscences  from  Deuteronomy 
— and  make  him  flatly  deny  the  truth  of  this  passage.  Was 
ever  inconsistency  more  glaring  or  moire  inexcusable?  Scien- 
tific criticism ! 

(4)  The  absurdity  of  thus  interpreting  Jeremiah's  words 
appears  still  more  monstrous  when  we  take  into  vie^v  some  of 
his  O'wn  utterances  on  this  subject  in  other  passages.  In  xi. 
o,  4,  he  expressly  cites  the  covenant  given  at  Mount  Sinai  in 
these  solemn  words:  "Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel: 
Cursed  be  the  man  that  heareth  not  the  words  of  this  cove- 
nant, which  I  made  with  your  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  brought 
them  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  iron  furnace, 
saying.  Obey  my  voice,  and  do  them,  acco'rding  to  all  which 
I  command  you:  so  shall  ye  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  your 
God."  But  one  of  the  things  commanded  when  this  covenant 
was  made,  was  that  they  should  erect  an  altar,  as  we  have 
quoted  above,  on  which  to  offer  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings. 
In  xiv.  11,  12,  he  says:  "Jehovah  said  to  me.  Pray  not  for  this 
people  for  their  good.  When  they  fast,  I  will  not  hear  their 
cry;  and  when  they  offer  burnt  offering  and  oblation,  I  ^\'ill 
not  accept  them :  but  I  will  consume  them  by  the  sword,  and 
by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pestilence."     Here  it  is  clearly  im- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  187 

plied  that  but  fur  tlic  e-xtreiuo  wickedness  of  tlio  people,  on  ac- 
count of  whicli  tliey  were  to  be  no  longer  subjects  for  jirayer, 
and  their  burnt  offerings  and  oblations  would  not  be  accepted, 
idl  these  acts  of  worship  would  be  accepted;  and  it  is  just  as 
reasonable  to  say  that  fasting  and  prayer  were  not  authorized 
by  God,  as  to  say  that  sacrifices  were  not. 

Finally,  passing  by  several  other  passages  having  a  sim- 
ilar bearing,  in  xvii.  24-26  Jehovah  promises,  on  condition  that 
the  j>eople  "hearken  to  him,"  that  Jerusalem  shall  remain  for- 
ever, and  he  adds :  "They  shall  come  from  the  cities  of  Judah, 
and  from  the  cities  round  about  Jerusalem,  and  from  the  land 
of  Benjamin,  and  from  the  lowland,  and  from  the  mountains, 
and  from  the  South,  bringing  burnt  offerings,  and  sacrifices, 
and  oblations,  and  frankincense,  and  bringing  sacrifices  of 
thanksgiving,  unto  the  house  of  Jehovah.''  Here  the  whole 
round  of  Levltical  sacrifices  is  described,  and  the  fact  that  all 
are  to  be  zealously  observed  is  the  crowning  blessing  in  a  gra- 
cious promise.  Can  we  imagine  Jehovah  through  the  prophet 
speaking  thus  of  a  ritual  which  he  had  never  authorized,  and 
which,  though  observed  in  the  right  spirit,  could  secure  no  fa^^or 
at  his  hand  ? 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  Jeremiah  in  the  passage  so 
confidently  employed  by  the  critics  to  prove  that  Jehovah  had 
never  spoken  to  the  fathers  concerning  such  a  service  ?  If 
men  will  but  use  the  knowledge  which  they  easily  command 
when  they  are  not  swayed  by  prepossessions,  it  is  not  far  to 
seek.  It  is  found  in  that  well-known  IIebre\v  idiom  by  which, 
in  comparing  tw^o  objects  or  courses  of  action,  the  universal 
negative  is  used  with  the  one  that  is  inferior.  A  few  ex- 
amples of  it  may  remind  the  intelligent  reader  of  that  Avhich 
he  already  knows,  but  is  apt,  on  account  of  its  difference  from 
our  own  usage,  to  forget.  When  Joseph  had  revealed  him- 
self to  his  guilty  brethren,  and  w-as  seeking  to  comfort  them, 
he  said :  "Be  not  grieved,  nor  angry  with  yourselves  that  ye 
sold  me  hither :  for  God  did  send  me  before  you  to  preserve 
life.  ...  So  now  it  was  not  you  that  sent  me  hither,  but  God'' 


188  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

(Gen.  xlv.  5-8).  In  Deut.  v.  2,  3,  Moses  says  to  the  people  1 
'Mehovali  our  God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  Jeho- 
vah made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers,  but  with  us,  even 
MS,  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day."  He  means,  Jeho- 
vah made  a  covenant  not  with  our  fathers  only,  or  specially, 
but  with  us  also.  Jesus  says :  "Think  not  that  I  came  to  send 
peace  on  earth.  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword"  (Matt. 
X.  34).  The  people  of  Samaria  say  to  the  woman  who  had 
met  Jesus  at  the  well:  "Xow  we  believe,  not  because  of  thy 
speaking:  for  we  have  heard  for  ourselves,  and  we  know  that 
this  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the  world;"  and  yet  it  had  just 
been  said,  "Many  of  the  Samarians  believed  on  him  because 
of  the  word  of  the  woman"  (John  iv.  39-42).  They  believed 
finally,  not  because  of  her  speaking  alone.  Paul  says  to  the 
Corinthians,  "I  was  sent  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel" (I.  Cor.  i.  17) — not  to  baptize  alone-,  or  chiefly,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel.  He  also  says  to  Timothy:  "Be  no  longer 
a  drinker  of  water,  but  use  a  little  wine  for  thy  stomach's  saka 
and  thine  often  infirmities"  (I.  Tim.  v.  23).  These  are  a  few 
examples  of  the  idiom,  and  others  are  to  be  found  in  all  parts 
of  the  Scriptures.  Instances  of  its  use  are  determined,  as  in 
the  case  of  all  other  figurative  language,  by  the  nature  of  the 
case,  by  the  context,  or  by  the  known  sentiments  of  the  writer. 
The  passage  under  discussion  in  Jeremiah  is  an  example 
of  this  idiom ;  and  the  prophet  means  by  it,  "I  spake  not  to 
your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I  brought 
them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings  or 
sacrifices  as  their  chief  service;  but  this  I  commanded  them  as 
the  chief  thing,  saying.  Hearken  unto  my  voice,  and  I  will 
be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  We  are  forced  to 
this  conclusion,  both  by  the  sentiments  of  the  prophet  expressed 
in  the  other  passages  quoted  above,  and  by  the  context  2>re>- 
eeding  this  passage.  The  discourse  in  which  our  passage  is 
found  begins  Avith  the  chapter.  It  was  delivered  as  the 
prophet  stood  in  the  gate  of  the  temjDle.  He  first  de- 
no'Unces    the   men   of   Judah    for    trusting   to    the   temple    of 


THE   BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  189 

Jehovah,  as  false  ]>ropheti5  had  taught  them,  for  security 
against  the  disasters  which  he  predicted ;  and  tells  thean 
that  they  are  trusting  in  "lying  words."  He  demands  of 
them,  as  their  ground  of  safety,  the  abandonment  of  crimes 
which  they  were  committing;  and  with  respect  to  the  tem- 
ple and  its  services,  he  indignantly  demands:  "Will  ye 
steal,  and  murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear  falsely, 
and  burn  incense  to  Baal,  and  walk  after  other  gods,  whom  ye 
have  not  kuoAvai,  and  come  and  stand  before  me  in  this  house 
which  is  called  by  my  name,  and  say.  We  are  delivered ;  that 
we  may  do  all  these  abominations  ?  Is  this  house  which  is  called 
by  my  name  become  a  den  of  robbeirs  in  your  eyes  ?"  Then  he 
reminds  them  of  the  destruction  of  Shiloh,  where  he  caused 
his  name  to  dwell  at  the  first,  and  he  tells  them:  "I  will  do 
unto  the  house  which  is  called  by  my  name,  wherein  ye  trust, 
and  the  place  which  I  gave  to  you  and  to  your  fathers,  as  I 
have  done  to  Shiloh."  He  then  tells  Jeremiah  not  to  pray  for 
the  people.  Even,  now,  since  Josiah's  reformation  had  taken 
place,  and  public  idolatry  had  been  suppressed,  they  were  still 
worshiping  the  heavenly  bodies  in  secret.  "The  children 
gather  wood,  and  the  fathers  kindle  the  fire,  and  the  women 
knead  the  dough,  to  make  cakes  to  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  to 
pour  out  drink-offerings  to  other  gods,  that  they  may  provoke 
me  to  anger."  It  was  in  view  of  this  hypocrisy  that  the  prophet 
declares  in  the  name  of  Jehovah :  "I  spake  not  to  your  fathers, 
nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices:  but 
this  I  commanded  them,  saying.  Hearken  unto  my  voice,  and 
I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  In  view  of 
this  context,  and  in  view  of  the  indisputable  fact  that  both  Jere- 
miah and  the  people  whom  he  addressed  recognized  as  true  what 
is  said  of  the  "book  of  the  covenant"  and  in  Deuteronomy  of 
God's  commands  in  respect  to  sacrifice,  why  have  our  critics, 
who  are  quick  to  recognize  this  idiom  in  other  places,  so  blindly 
failed  to  see  it  here  ?  "There  are  none  so  blind  as  those  w^ho 
will  not  see." 


190  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

We  Lave  now  examineil  all  of  tlie  principal  passages  which 
are  used  to  j^rove  that  the  pre-exilic  prophets  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  Levitical  law,  and  that  all  of  them  except  Jeremiah 
were  ignorant  of  Deuteronomy ;  and  we  are  seriously  mistaken 
if  every  unprejudiced  reader  will  not  agree  that  they  furnish 
no  such  proof.  On  the  contrary,  all  of  them,  when  fairly  con- 
strued, are  in  perfect  harmony  with  such  knowledge,  some  of 
them  presuppose  it,  and  many  passages  which  these  critics  have 
overlooked  bear  positive  testimony  in  its  favoa*.  So  elaborate 
and  painstaking  an  attempt  to  sustain  a  false  assumption  has 
seldom  proved  so  complete  a  failure. 

§9.     Evidence  feom  Style. 

In  the  early  stage  of  destructive  criticism  its  advocates 
depended  chiefly  on  peculiarities  of  style  for  detea^mining  the 
relative  ages  of  documents,  and  for  distinguishing  one  writer 
from  another  in  composite)  documents.  For  the  latter  purpose 
it  is  still  almost  their  only  reliance.  But  this  method,  called 
literary  criticism,  has  been  abandoned  to  a  large  extent  in 
discussing  such  questions  as  the  authorship  and  date  of  Deute- 
ronomy. Its  relegation  to  an  inferior  place  is  the  result  of 
the  many  glaring  exposures  of  its  unreliability  which  have  been 
published  by  conservative  scholars.  These  exposures  have 
recorded  a  decisive  victory  of  conservatism,  which  may  be  taken 
as  a  token  of  the  victory  yet.  to  be  won  in  the  whole  field  of  con- 
troversy. Professoir  Driver,  in  his  Introduction,  shows  the 
effect  uj)on  himself  of  this  victo^ry,  by  minimizing  the  argimient 
from  this  source.  Ho  devotes  but  little  more  than  four  pages 
to  the  subject,  and  nearly  three  of  these  are  taken  up  with  the 
quotation  of  forty-one  phrases  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy. 
It  is  not  claimed,  in  reference  tO'  any  of  the  forty-one,  that 
Moses  could  not  ha,ve  used  it.  Of  many  it  is  asserted  that  they 
were  adopted  from  the  jDre-exi sting  document  JE ;  but  this  is 
only  to  acknowledge  tliat  they  were  adopted  from  what  we  now 
read  in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  and  it  conforms  with  the  Biblical 
representation  that  this  book  was  written  before  De'Uteronomy. 
Of  the  author  of  Deuteronomv  he  savs: 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  191 

His  power  as  an  orator  is  shown  in  the  long  and  stately  periods 
with  which  his  work  abounds:  at  the  same  time,  the  parenthetic  treat- 
ment which  his  subject  often  demands,  always  maintains  its  freshness, 
and  is  never  monotonous  or  prolix.  In  his  command  of  a  chaste  and 
persuasive  eloquence,  he  stands  unique  among  the  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament  (102). 

What  orator  among  all  that  graced  tlie  history  of  Israel  is 
more  likely  to  have  deserved  this  encomium  than  Moses,  whose 
training  in  all  tJie  learning  of  the  Egyptians,  and  whose  prac- 
tice through  foa'ty  years  in  the  w^ldeirness  with  people  whom  he 
was  almoet  daily  addressing,  gave  him  pre-eminent  opportuni- 
ties to  acquire  unique  oratorical  j>o\vers  ?  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  Driver  abandons  the  argument  from  style  as  respects 
the  authorship  of  Deuteronomy. ^^ 

This  completes  our  review  of  the  evidences  on  which  those 
critics  who  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy  depend 
for  their  conclusion.  If  not  exhaustive  of  these,  numerically 
considered,  it  is  exhaustive,  we  modestly  think,  of  their  force 
as  a  whole.  The  refutation  will  derive  additional  force  from 
the  positive  evidence  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  which  we  shall 
next  present. 

^'The  reader  who  is  curious  to  trace  the  arguments  and  illustra- 
tions by  which  this  citadel  of  the  earlier  critics  has  been  stormed,  is 
referred  to  the  following  works:  Edersheim's  History  and  Prophecy 
in  Reference  to  the  Messiah,  261-263;  Stanley  Leathes'  Witness  of  the 
Old  Testament  to  Christ,  282  ff.;  Green's  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, 113-118;  Bartlett's  Veracity  of  the  Hexateuch,  300-302;  The 
Higher  Critics  Criticised,  by  H.  L.  Hastings  and  R.  P.  Stebbins,  Ixii., 
Ixiii.:   152-172. 


PART   II. 

EYIDEI^CE    FOR    THE    MOSAIC 
AUTHORSHIP. 


199 


PART  XI. 

EYIDEN"CE  EOE  THE  MOSAIC  AUTHORSHIP. 

I.     INTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 

§1.     The  Dikect  Testimony  of  the  Writek. 

It  is  a  nile  of  evidence  recognized  in  oiiir  eonrts  of  jnstico, 
that  tJie  claim  of  autliorship  which  any  written  document  sets 
forth  within  itself  has  a  presumption  in  its  favor.  This  pi-e- 
sumption  has  such  force  that  upoai  it  alone  the  document  must 
be  received  as  a  genuine  product  of  said  author,  unless  the  claim 
is  proved  to  be  false.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  on  him  who 
calls  it  in  question.  This  is  true  of  bank  checks,  notes  of  hand, 
deeds  to  i'«al  estat-e,  wills,  and  all  such  writings.  It  is  equally 
true  of  books.  This  presumption  is  the  natural  starting-point 
for  such  a  discussion  as  the  present,  but  on  the  i:)re.ceding  pages 
Ave  have  considered  evidences  by  which  certain  critics  have  at- 
tempted to  set  it  aside.  This  reversal  of  the  natural  order 
seemed  prudent,  as  we  have  remarked  in  the  Introduction  (§7), 
on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  minds  of  many  have  been  for  a 
generation  preoccupied  with  the  belief  that  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship has  been  disproved.  Having  examined  all  of  these  evi- 
dences wdiich  can  be  claimed  as  decisive  in  the  case,  and  found 
that  none  of  tliem  has  the  force  claimed  for  it,  and  that  many 
have  a  bearing  in  the  opposite  direction,  we  no^v  propose  to  set 
forth  in  contrast  with  these  the  evidences  which  have  led  Bibli- 
cal scholars  in  the  past  as  in  the  present  to  believe  that  Moses 
is  the  author  of  the  book.  We  shall  dwell  first  on  explicit  state- 
ments of  the  book  itself. 

1.  The  first  sentence  of  the  book,  which  is  evidently  in- 
tended as  its  title,  reads  thus:  "These  be  the  w^ords  which 
Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  in  the  wilderness, 
in  the  Arabah  over  against  Suph,  between  Paran  and  Tophel, 
and   Laban,    and   Hazeroth,    and   Di-zahab."     This  represents 

195 


196  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  coutetnts  of  tlie  book  as  having  been  delivered  orally  to  all 
Israel  by  Moses.  It  also  very  definitely  locates  the  place  in 
which  this  was  dome.  Of  the  words  defining  the  place  we  have 
spoken  fully  in  Part  First,  Section  6.  The  author  next  states 
very  definitely  the  time  at  which  Moses  began  this  oral  com- 
munication :  "It  came  to  pass  in  the  fortieth  year,  in  the  elev- 
enth month,  on  the  first  day  of  the  month,  that  Moses  spake 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  according  to  all  that  Jehovah  had 
given  him  in  commandment  unto  them."  In  the  next  sentence 
he  again  defines  the  place  in  different  words,  saying,  "Beyond 
Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Mo»ab,  began  Moses  to  declare  this  law." 
Then  follows  a  discourse,  beginning  with  verse  6,  and  ending 
with  the  fourth  chapter  and  fortieth  verse. 

These  statements  afiirm  nothing  about  comanitting  the  dis- 
course to  writing.  Thev  refer  onlv  to  its  oral  deliverv ;  but  in 
doing  this  they  make  Moses  the  autlior  of  what  is  wn-itten.  On 
this  point  they  could  not  be  more  explicit.  These  prefatoiry 
remarks  may  have  been  written  after  the  discoiurse  was ;  but 
whether  written  befoi-e  or  after  does  not  appear  from  the  textw 
N^eitlier  does  it  appear  whether  they  were  written  by  Moses 
himself,  or  by  another  person ;  for  although  the  third  person 
is  used  in  speaking  of  Moses,  this  was  the  frequent  custom  of 
ancient  historians  Avheoi  speaking  of  themselves.  In  the  speech 
itself  the  first  person  is  necesisaj.-ily  employed. 

One  thing  more  in  these  prefatory  remarks  demands  our 
attention.  The  words  of  Moses  which  follow  are  called  a  "law." 
"Moses  began  to  declare  this  la-w"  (verse  5).  But  in  the  first 
discourse,  while  there  are  very  solemn  exhortations  to  keep 
the  laws  which  Moses  had  previously  given,  there  are  no  laws 
propounded.  The  discourse  is  historical,  not  legal.  But  the 
second  discourse  is  legal  and  not  historical.  These  considcTa- 
tions  show  that  the  expression  "this  law"  is  intended  to  in- 
clude both  ;  just  as,  in  later-  times,  the  whole  Pentateuch,  law 
and  history  was  called  "the  law."  The  preface  then  afiirms 
the  Mosaic  authorship  not  merely  of  the  first  discourse,  but 
of  that  which  follows.      It  includes,  in  reality,  the  contents  of 


THE    BOOK   OF   DEUTEROKOMYJ  197 

all  the  rest  of  the  book  as  it  existed  at  the  time ;  and  we  shoiuld 
imderstand  it  as  including  all  as  we  now  have  it  unless  we 
find  good  reason  to  suppose  that  some  of  it  has  been  added 
since. 

2.  Preface  to  the  Second  Discourse.  At  v.  1  a  second  dis- 
course begins,  and  it  closes  at  xxvi.  19.  It  is  introduced  by 
prefatory  stateiments  in  iv.  44-49,  of  wdiich  this  is  the  fir&t: 
''And  this  is  the  law  which  Moses  set  before  the  children  of 
Israel :  these  are  the  testimonies,  and  the  statutes,  and  the 
judgemients,  which  Moses  spake  to  the  children  of  Israel, 
when  they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt;  beyond  Jordan,  over 
against  Beth-peor,  in  the  land  of  Sihon  king  of  the  Amo- 
rites,  who  dwelt  at  Ileshbon,  whom  Moses  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  smote,  when  they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt." 
Here  the  expression,  "And  this  is  the  la,w,"  refers  back 
to  the  words,  "Moses  began  to  declare  this  law"  (i.  5), 
and  'means  this  also  is  the  law ;  that  is,  a  continuance 
of  the  law  w^hich  Moses  set  before  Israel.  It  is  further 
defined  here  as  containing  "testimonies,  statutes  and  judges 
ments."  This  is  the  second  declaration  of  the  Mosaic  authoT- 
ship,  and  in  compliance  with  it  we  are  told  that  "Moses  called 
unto  all  Israel,  and  said  to  them,  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  statutes 
and  the  judgements  wdiioh  I  speak  in  your  ears  this  day,  that 
ye  may  learn  them,  and  observe  to  do  theni"  (v.  1). 

3.  After  the  Close  of  the  Second  Discourse.  l^ext  after 
this  second  discourse  by  Moses,  directions  are  given  fo^r  the 
erection  of  great  stones  at  Mt.  Ebal,  which  were  to  be  covered 
with  plaister,  and  in  the  plaister,  while  soft,  were  to  be  writ- 
ten "all  the  words  of  this  law;"  and  the  singular  ceremony  of 
pronouncing  curses  and  blessings  was  there  to  be  observed 
(xxvii.  1-26).  In  the  directions  here  given,  Moses  is  three 
times  said  to  have  been  the  principal  speaker.  First,  "Moses 
and  the  elders  of  Israel"  command  the  people,  saying,  "Keep 
all  the  commandment  which  I  command  you  this  day"  (1)  ; 
second,  "Moses  and  the  priests  the  Levites"  spake  to  all  Israel, 
saying,  "Keep  silence,  and  hearken,  0  Israel"  (9)  ;  and  third, 
"Moses  charged  the  people  the  same  day"    (11).      Thus  the 


198  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

twenty-seventli  cliapter  is  ascribed,  to  Moses  three  times.  Tliein 
the  tw-eoty-eighth  chapter,  which  is  a  prophetic  outline  of  the 
history  of  Israel  down  to  the  Roman  captivity,  and  on  to  the 
present  day,  is  a  continuation  of  what  he  says  in  the  twenty- 
seventh. 

4.  In  the  Preface  to  the  Covenant.  The  section  including 
chapters  xxix.  and  xxx,  is  introduced  with  the  stateiinent,  "These 
are  the  words  of  the  covenant  which  Jehovah  commanded 
Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Moab, 
beside  the  covenant  which  he  made  with  them  in  Horeb ;"  and 
the  words  themselves  are  preceded  by  the  statement,  "Moses 
called  unto  all  Israel,  and  said  to  them."  Thus  the  contents 
of  these  two  chapters  are  explicitly  ascribed  to  Moses,  and  the 
thirty-first  chapter  opens  with  the  statement,  "x\nd  Moses  wemt 
and  spake  these  woii*ds  unto  all  Israel."  Then  the  next  seven 
verses  of  chapter  xxxi.  are  occupied  with  what  Moses  said  by 
way  of  encouraging  the  people,  and  Joshua  his  successoi*. 

5.  Committing  this  Law  to  Writing.  Thus  far  nothing  has 
been  said  in  the  book  about  committing  its  contents  to  writing. 
All  has  been  spoken  by  Moses,  in  the  form  of  public  addresses 
to  "all  Israel."  'Now  we  have  the  statement  (xxxi.  9)  :  "xind 
Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  to  the  priests  the  sons 
of  Levi,  who  bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  and 
unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel."  This  is  immediately  followed 
by  the  command,  "At  the  end  of  every  seven  years,  in  the  set 
time  of  the  year  of  release,  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when 
all  Israel  is  come  to  api^ear  before  Jehovah  thy  God  in  the 
place  which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before 
all  Israel  in  their  hearing."  Farther  on  in  the  same  chapter 
(24-20)  2>rovision  is  made  for  the  preservation  of  the  book  thus 
Avritten,  and  it  is  said :  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Mouses  had 
made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until 
they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites,  who 
bore  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah,  saying,  Take  this  book 
of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  co'venant 
of  Jehovah  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness  against 
thee." 


THE  BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  199 

We  thus  have  the  most  explicit  testi'mony  of  this  book  it- 
self, that  its  contents  up  to  the  close  of  its  thirty-first  chapter 
were  first  delivered  orally  to  all  Israel  by  Moses,  and  then 
written  by  him  in  a  book,  and  that  this  book  was  then  deliv- 
ered to  the  guardians  of  the  most  sacred  symbol  of  Jehovah's 
presence,  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  as  if  it  were  of  equal  sancr 
tity,  and  to  be  preserved  with  equal  vigilance.  It  is  vain  to 
eixcept  any  of  the  preceding  contents,  such  as  the  first  four 
chapters,  and  ascribe  to  them  a  later  origin,  for  the  repeated 
expression,  "this  law,"  found  in  every  part  as  \ve  have  seen, 
like  the  links  of  a  continuous  chain  binds  all  the  parts  in  one. 

6.  In  tlie  Preface  to  the  Song,  and  that  to  the  Blessing. 
We  have  already,  in  a  previous  section  (§6,  4),  called  atten- 
tion to  the  four  explicit  statements  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  "song  of  Moses"  (xxxi.  19,  22,  30 ;  xxxii.  44)  ;  and  to 
the  one  which  asserts  that  he  blessed  the  children  of  Israel 
with  the  blessing  contained  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  (xxxiii. 
1)  ;  and  we  have  answered  the  arguments  by  which  adverse 
critics  have  tried  to  set  this  testimony  aside.  Nothing  more 
needs  to  be  said  on  these  points. 

We  have  now  reached  the  end  of  the  book,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  account  of  the  death  of  Moses,  and  some  comments 
on  his  career,  all  of  whicJi  undoubtedly  came  from  the  pen  of 
some  later  writer  or  writers.  A  very  small  number  of  persons, 
with  extreme  views  of  inspiration,  have  expressed  the  opinion 
that  Moses,  by  inspiration,  wrote  this  account  and  these  com- 
ments; and  destructive  critics  have  sometimes  cited  this  fact, 
in  order  to  throw  discredit  on  the  whole  company  of  scholars 
who  believe  in  the  Mosaic  authorship.  This  is  unworthy  of 
men  claiming  to  be  critics.  We  could  as  well  retort  by  quot- 
ing some  of  the  silly  opinions  advanced  by  unskilled  advocates 
of  their  own  theory,  of  which  many  can  be  found,  and  hold 
their  entire  school  responsible  for  these. 

The  reader  is  now  better  prepared  to  appreciate  the  oft- 
repeated  assertion  that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  does  not 
claim  Moses  as  its  author.      ]!^o  assertion  could  be  more  reck- 


200  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

less  ou  the  part  o£  any  man  who  has  gathered  up  the  book's 
account  of  itself;  and  the  man  who  has  not  done  this  has  no 
right  to  make  any  assertion  at  all  on  the  subject.  Unless  this 
internal  evidence  shall  be  set  aside  by  such  proofs  as  have  never 
yet  been  brought  forth,  it  must  stand  good  before  the  bar  of 
enlightened  opinion. 

§2.     Indirect  Testimony  of  the  Author. 

The  formal  claim  of  authorship  made  in  a  document  may 
often  be  confirmed,  or  thrown  into  doubt,  by  remarks  inciden- 
tally made  when  the  question  of  authorship  is  not  in  the  au- 
thor's mind.  A  large  number  of  such  remarks,  confirming  the 
formal  clailm  which  w©  have  just  considered,  is  found  in  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy.  They  consist  in  incidental  allusions 
to  the  fact  that  when  the  speeches  and  poems  which  make  up 
the  body  of  the  work  were  composed,  the  speaker  and  his  audi- 
tors had  not  yet  crossed  over  intO'  the  promised  land.  There 
are  none  of  these  in  the  first  discourse,  for  the  evident  reason 
that  in  it  the  speaker  was  reciting  and  comtmenting  on  past 
events.  But  in  the  twenty-seven  chapters  which  begin  with 
the  sixth  and  end  with  the  thirty-second,  they  are  as  numerous 
as  the  chapters.  They  are  not  expressed  in  a  stereotyped 
formula,  as  if  they  had  been  inserted  for  effect.  Once  we  have, 
"In  the  land  which  ye  go  over  to  possess  it"  (vi.  1).  Three 
times  we  have,  "When  Jehovah  thy  God  shall  bring  thee  into 
the  land  which  he  sware  to  thy  fathers  to  give  thee"  (vi.  10 ; 
vii.  1;  xi.  29)  ;  twice,  "That  thou  mayest  go  in  and  possess  the 
good  land"  (vi.  18;  viii.  1)  ;  once,  "Thou  art  to  pass  over  Jor- 
dan this  day"  (ix.  1)  ;  once,  "They  shall  go  in  and  possess  the 
land"  (x.  11)  ;  three  times,  "The  land  which  thou  goest  in  to 
possess  it"  (xi.  10,  11 ;  xxxii.  47)  ;  once,  "When  ye  go  over 
Jordan  and  dwell  in  the  land"  (xii.  10)  ;  three  times,  "When 
thou  shalt  come  into  the  land"  (xvii.  4;  xviii.  9;  xxvi.  1)  ; 
four  times,  "The  land  which  Jehovah  giveth  thee  to  possess 
it"  (xix.  2;  xxi.  1,  23;  xxv.  19);  twice,  "On  the  day  when 
ye  pass  over  Jordan"  (xxvil.  2,  4)  ;  once*  "Jehovah  thy  God 
will  go  over  before  thee"   (xxxi.  3)  ;  twice^  "Joshua  shall  sro 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  201 

over  before  tbee"  (xxxi.  3,  8)  ;  ouce,  "The  land  which  ye  go 
over  Jordan  to  possess  it"  (xxxi.  13)  ;  once,  "When  I  shall 
have  bronght  them  into  the  land  which  I  sware  to  their  fathers" 
(xxxi.  20). 

Xow,  if  Moses  was  the  author  of  these  several  documents, 
as  is  so  positively  asserted,  these  forms  of  expression,  and  this 
frequent  recurrence  of  them,  are  perfectly  natural;  and  the 
reader  will  find,  upon  examination  of  them,  that  they  are 
every  one  nicely  fitted  to  the  context  in  which  it  occurs,  taking 
form  in  harmony  therewith.  The  frequency  of  their  occur- 
rence is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  eastern  slopes  of  the 
promised  land  were  in  full  view  of  the  multitude  as  thc'V  lis- 
tened to  Moses.,  with  nothing  but  the  overflowing  Jordan  be- 
tween it  and  them.  In  the  earlier  books,  when  there  was  a 
period  of  many  years  and  a  long  desert  journey  between  the 
people  and  the  land  of  promise,  the  speeches  of  Moses  are  al- 
most void  of  such  allusions.  There  are  only  two  in  Exodus, 
unless  some  have  escaped  our  search  (xiii.  5,  11)  ;  only  three 
in  Leviticus  (xiv.  34;  xxiii.  10;  xxv.  2);  and  only  five  in 
Xumbers,  three  of  the  five  occurring  in  remarks  made  on  the 
plain  of  "Moab,  where  the  discourses  of  Deuteronomv  were  de- 
livered (xv.  2,  18;  xxxiii.  51;  xxxiv.  2;  xxxv.  10).  Kothing 
could  be  more  natural  on  the  lips  of  Moses  than  the  frequency 
of  these  expressions  when  standing  in  sight  of  the  promised 
land,  and  the  infrequency  of  them  when  far  away. 

If,  now,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  instead  of  being  writ- 
ten by  Moses,  was  composed  seven  centuries  later,  in  the  time 
of  Manasseh,  the  only  conceivable  i^ason  why  it  contains  so 
many  positive  assertions  of  its  Mosaic  authorship,  was  to  make 
its  readei*s  believe  that  Moses  wrote  it,  the  real  author  or  au- 
thors knowing  perfectly  well  that  he  did  no  such  thing.  And, 
on  this  hypothesis,  the  only  motive  for  introducing  these  varied 
expressions  in  the  speeches  about  a  future  entrance  into  the 
promised  land,  was  to  add  a  superfluity  of  false  evidence  of 
the  same  false  representation.  And  when  we  consider  the 
large  number  of  these  allusions,  and  the  varied  forms  in  which 
they  are  presented,  we  find  in  them  not  only  a  superfluity  of 


202  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

lying,  but  an  ingenuity  in  framing  falselioods  which  are  in- 
credible because  tJiej  surpass  the  cunning  which  any  other 
spurious  author  has  ever  exhibited.  I^o  juggler  ever  displayed 
more  cunning  in  devising  his  tricks  of  legerdemain. 

Furthermore,  if  the  Books  of  Exodus,  Leviticus  and  Nfiun- 
bers  were  written  two  hundred  years  later  than  Deuteronomy, 
the  author  or  authors  of  these  books  had  even  more  reason  to 
employ  deceptive  devices  in  making  their  readers  believe  that 
Moses  wrote  them,  in  proportion  as  their  distance  from  the 
days  of  Moses  was  greater.  They  had  also  the  example  of  the 
Deuteronomi&t  to  teach  them  skill  in  this  line  of  deception. 
Why,  then,  did  not  they,  while  making  speeches  and  putting 
them  inio  the  lips  of  Moses,  insert  in  +hem  a  similar  number 
and  variety  of  allusions  to  the  future  entrance  into  Canaan  ? 
They  insert  enough  of  them  to  show  that  they  were  not  ashamed 
of  the  devdce,  but  they  fall  far  short,  of  their  exemplar  in  tlie 
nuoiiber  of  them.  Was  it  because  they  thought  it  might  not 
appear  natural  for  Moses  to  speak  so  often  of  crossing  the 
Jordan  while  he  was  at  a  distance  from  it?  If  so,  this  ex- 
l^lanation,  without  reflecting  any  credit  on  their  honesty,  only 
magnifies  their  devilish  ingenuity. 

§3.     Incidental  Evidence. 

There  are  certain  enactments  recorded  in  Deuteronomy 
which  were  wholly  out  of  da-te  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  and 
Josiah,  and  which  could  not  have  originated  later  than  the 
time  of  Moses.      A  few  of  these  we  specify : 

1.  The  Decree  against  Amalek.  "Remember  what  Amalek 
did  to  thee  by  the  way  as  ye  came  forth  out  of  Egypt;  how 
he  met  thee  by  the  way,  and  smote  the  hindmost  of  thee,  all 
that  were  feeble  behind  thee,  when  thou  wast  faint  and  weary; 
and  he  feared  not  God.  Therefore  it  shall  be,  when  Jehovah 
thy  God  hath  given  thee  rest  from  all  thine  enemies  round 
about,  in  the  land  which  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee  for  an 
inheritance  to  possess  it,  that  thou  shalt  blot  out  the  reimem- 
brance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven ;  thoai  shalt  not  forget" 
(xxv.  17-19). 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  203 

If  Moses  is  the  author  of  both  Exodus  and  Deuteronom}-, 
this  order  is  simply  an  order  issued  by  Moses  in  the  last  year 
of  the  wanderings,  for  the  execution  of  a  decree  issued  by 
God  in  the  first  year  (Ex.  xvii.  8-16)  ;  but  if  the  narrative  in 
Exodus  was  not  written  till  six  hundred  years  after  Moses,  and 
Deuteronomy  not  till  seven  centuries  after,  then  the  author  of 
the  former  put  into  the  lips  of  God  a  decree  which  he  never 
uttered,  and  the  latter  ])ut  an  order  for  the  execution  of  this 
decree  in  the  lips  of  Moses  which  he  never  uttered.  Moreover, 
at  the  supposed  time  of  the  writing's,  Amalek  had  long  since 
disappeared  from  the  earth,  having  been  exterminated  by  Saul 
and  David.  What  motive,  then,  could  have  actuated  these  two 
writers?  If  we  sup|X)se  that  the ' hypothetical  J  or  E  wrote 
the  account  in  Exodus  because  there  was  in  his  day  an  oral 
tradition  that  such  a  deci*ee  had  been  issued,  this  furnishes  no 
excuse  tO'  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  for  putting  into  the 
mouth  of  Moses  an  order  foi*  which  there  was  not  even  tra- 
ditionary evidence.  We  must  conclude  either  that  it  was  an 
invention  of  the  latter  spun  out  of  his  own  brain,  or  that  he 
is  himself  an  invention  spun  out  of  the  brains  of  modern 
critics.  Driver  says  that  "only  an  antiquarian  reason  is  as- 
signed for  the  injunction  to  exterminate  Amalek"  (Com., 
xxxi.).  The  reason  given  is,  that  Amalek  had  made  an  un- 
provoked attack  on  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  If  that  was  a 
valid  reason,  it  does  not  become  invalid  b}^  giving  it  a 
strange  name,  and  calling  it  an  ''antiquarian  reason."  It  ^\'mlld 
be  better  to  inquire,  For  Avhat  reason  did  the  hypothetical 
writer  put  this  "antiquarian  reason"  in  his  book  ?  It  could  only 
have  been  to  sustain  the  deception  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  book. 

2.  The  Order  to  Exterminate  the  Canaanites.  It  is  only 
in  Deuteronomy  that  this  order  is  found:  "But  of  the  cities 
of  these  peoples,  which  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee  for  an  in- 
heritance, thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing  that  breatheih:  but 
thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  them;  the  ITittite,  and  the  Amorite, 
the  Canaanite,  and  the  Perizzite,  the  Hivite,  and  the  Jebusite; 
as  Jehovah  thv  Go<l  hath  commanded  thee:  that  thev  teach  you 


204  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

not  to  do  after  their  abominatioai&,  whick  they  liave  done  uutci. 
their  gods;  so  should  ye  sin  against  Jehovah  your  God"  (xx. 
16-18).  On  the  critical  hypothesis,  this  order  was.  not  in  ex- 
istence in  any  written  document  whein  Deuteronomy  was  com- 
posed, not  even  in  the  imaginary  documents  J  and  E.  The 
writer,  then,  must  have  composed  it  himself  and  put  it  into 
the  mouth  of  Moses.  Aiid  what  motive  could  he  have  kad 
for  so  doing  ?  The  Canaanite  tribes  mentioned  had  long  since 
disappeared  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  Israel  had  not  ex- 
terminated them  as  this  order  required.  They  had  slaughtered 
many,  but  they  had  spared  anany.  Did  the  writer  wish  to 
hold  up  his  ancestors  as  disobedient  to  a  divine  command  ? 
And  was  he  so  anxious  to  do  this  that  he  invented  tke  command 
to  make  tkem  appear  disobedient  to  it?  ISTo  critic  will  answer, 
Yes.  Tke  existemce  of  this  order  in  tke  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
is,  tken,  an  enigma,  if  it  was  not  placed  tliere  by  Moses  kim- 
self.  Tkis  conclusiou  is  confirmed  ky  tke  wkolly  evasive  at- 
tempt of  Driver  to  account  for'  tke  order.  He  says :  "Eeligious 
motives  sufficiently  explain  tke  strongly  kostile  attitude  adopted 
against  tke  Canaanites"  (Com.,  xxx.).  Yes;  of  course.  But 
wko  adopted  tkis  strongly  kostile  attitude;  a  writer  wko  lived 
long  centuries  after  tke  Canaanites  kad  disappeared  ?  or  a  wri- 
ter wko  lived  wkile  tkey  were  yet  living  and  powerful  ?  If  tke 
latter,  tken  Moses  wrote  Deuteronomy.  If  the  former,  then 
the  man  who  wrote  it  was  wasting  am»munition  by  firing  at  a 
dead  enemy. 

3.  The  Order  Respecting  Ammon,  Moab  and  Edom.  This 
order  provided  that  an  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite  shall  not  enter 
into  the  assembly  of  Jehovah,  even  to  the  tenth  generation ; 
and  two  reasons  are  given :  First,  because  they  ''met  not  Israel 
with  bread  and  water  in  the  Avay ;"  and,  second,  because  they 
hired  Balaam  to  curse  Israel.  It  also  contained  the  prohibi- 
tion, '*Tho'U  shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite;  for  he  is  thy  brother" 
(xxiii.  3-7).  This  order,  like  the  one  respecting  the  exter- 
mination of  the  Canaanites,  is  found  in  Deuteronomy  alone. 
It  is  not  in  I^umbers  or  Exodus,  nor  in  the  hypothetical  docu- 
ments J  and  E.     Whence,  then,  did  D  obtain  it  ?     Was  it  a 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTEKOXOMV.  205 

traditionary  law  which  D  here  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Moses? 
If  so,  why  docs  it  reverse  the  traditional  attitude  of  Israel  to- 
ward these  tribes  i  From  the  days  of  David  the  bitterest  hos- 
tility had  euxisted  between  Edom  and  Israel,  while  friendly  re- 
lations had  in  the  main  existed  between  IsTael  and  the  Ammon- 
ites and  Moabites.  David's  Ammonite  war  which  lasted  two 
years,  his  severe  chastisement  of  Moab,  and  the  expedition  of 
Jehoshaphat  and  Jehoa-am  against  Moab,  are  the  exceptions. 
How,  then,  conld  D  have  conceived  the  idea  of  putting  into 
the  lips  of  Moses  tlie  command  that  an  Edomite  shall  not  be 
abhorred,  but  that  an  Ammonite  or  a  Moabite  shall  not  come 
into  the  assembly  of  Jehovah  even  to  the  tenth  generation? 
It  is  incredible  that  he  did  sO';  but  it  is  most  credible  that 
Moses  did  it^  and  that  Israel  in  the  case  of  the  Edomites  were 
finally  led  to  abhor  them  on  account  of  their  later  hostility  and 
treachery. 

4.  The  Predictions  in  the  Book.  In  the  speeches  ascribed 
to  Moses  many  events  are  predicted,  all  of  which  were  yet 
future  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  some  were  future  in  the  time 
of  the  imaginary  D.  As  respects  those  which  were  not  future 
to  D,  it  was  of  course  possible  for  him  to  put  predictions  re^- 
specting  them  in  the  mouth,  of  Mosos,  and  thus  write  history 
under  the  pretense  of  writing  ancient  prophecy.  This,  on  the 
critical  hypothesis,  was  another  device  intended  to  deceive  the 
reader  by  making  it  appear  that  Mouses  had  predicted  events 
of  which  he  had  never  spoken.  This  might,  have  magnified 
the  name  of  Moses  as  a  prophet,  but  what  other  purpose  could 
have  actuated  it  our  critics  have  not  informed  us.  Indeed, 
they  have  overlooked  this  phase  of  the  subject  Among  the 
events  yet  future  to  D,  we  mention  the  two  captivities  of  Israel, 
the  many  evils  consequent  upon  them,  and  the  final  restoration 
of  the  remnant. 

In  chapter  xxviii.  a  long  series  of  sins  and  punishments  is 
predicted,  culminating  in  this:  "Jehovah  shall  bring  thee,  and 
thy  king  which  thou  shalt  set  over  thee,  imto  a  nation  which 
thou  hast  not  known,  thou  nor  thy  fathers;  and  thei-e  shalt 
thou  serve  other  gods,  wood  and  stone"    (36).      That  this  is 


206  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  Babylonian  captivity  is  made  certain  by  the  considerations, 
first,  tliat  their  king  was  to  be  tiiken  away  wiith  them ;  and, 
second,  that  the  nation  taking  tliean  away  was  not  one  previousr 
ly  known  to  them  or  their  fathers.  This  was  true  of  the  Baby- 
lonians, or  Chaldeans,  who  came  into  power  on  the  overthrow 
of  Nineveh  after  the  close  of  Josiah's  reign.  At  the  date  as- 
cribed to  D,  the  power  of  Assyria  was  at  its  zenith,  and  Baby- 
lon was  one  of  its  subject  provinces.  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
bis  Chaldean  army,  by  whom  Jerusalem  was  overthrown  and 
Judah  carried  into  exile,  represented  a  nation  which  had  just 
sprung  into  power  as  if  by  magic 

Now,  it  is  possible  that  the  hypothetical  D,  guided  by  the 
utterances  of  the  writing  prophets,  from  Amos  and  Hosea  to 
Isaiah  and  Micah,  could  have  framed  a  prediction  of  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity,  such  as  we  have  in  this  passage;  but  if  this  is 
the  way  in  which  he  obtained  his  foreknowledge,  he  was  guilty 
of  a  deliberate  fraud  in  putting  the  prediction  back  seven  hun- 
dred years  and  pretending  that  Moses  had  uttered  it.  Let  it 
be  noted,  too,  that  when  the  book  of  the  law  was  found  in  the 
temple  and  read  to  King  Josiah,  it  was  this  very  prediction 
most  of  all  which  so  frightened  him  that  he  rent  his  clothes 
and  effected  a  religious  reformation  in  his  kingdom.  He  may 
have  known  that  the  four  great  prophets  of  recent  times  had 
predicted  the  same  disaster  and  have  been  comparatively  un- 
moved by  the  fact ;  but  when  he  heard  it  out  of  a  book  written 
by  Moses,  and  heard  it  from  the  lips  of  Moses,  he  believed  it 
and  trembled ;  and  yet,  on  the  critical  hypothesis,  he  was 
frightened  by  something  which  Moses  never  spoke  and  nevcT 
dreamed  of  speaking. 

This  prediction  is  followed  by  a  terrific  array  of  the  calami- 
ties which  were  to  come  upon  Israel  after  this  captivity,  and 
then  at  verse  49  another  captivity  is  introduced :  "Jehovah 
shall  bring  a  nation  against  thee  from  far,  from  the  end  of  the 
eartli,  as  the  eagle  flieth ;  a  nation  whose  tongue  thou  shalt  not 
understand ;  a  nation  of  fierce  countenance,  which  shall  not  re^ 
gard  the  person  of  the  old,  nor  show  favor  to  the  young:  and 
he  shall  eat  the  fruit  of  thy  cattle,  and  the  fruit  of  thy  ground, 


THI-:    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMy.  207 

until  thou  be  destroyed:  which  also  shall  not  leave  thee  corn, 
wine  or  oil,  or  the  increase  of  thy  kin©,  or  the  young  of  thy 
flock,  until  he  have  caused  thee  to  perish"   (49-51). 

This  conquering  nation  is  distinguished  froun  the  first  by 
three  characteristios :  first,  it  was  to  come  "from  far,  from  the 
end  of  the  eartli ;"  second,  its  tongue  was  to  be  one  not  under- 
stood by  Israel ;  and,  third,  it  was  to  be  unmerciful  to  all  classes 
of  persons.  Such  were  the  Romans,  by  whom  Jerusalem  was 
finally  overthrown,  and.  the  Jews  scattered  as  they  are  to-day. 
They  came  froin  the  end  of  the  earth,  the  western  end,  where- 
as the  Chaldeans  came  from  a  comparatively  short  distance. 
Second,  their  tongue,  the  Latin,  was  as  strange  to  Israel  as  the 
Chinese  is  to  an  Anglo-Saxon,  while  the  Babylonian  was  a  kin- 
dred Semitic  dialect.  Third,  they  were  more  ruthless  in  the 
destruction  of  human,  life,  and  they  swept  the  country  cleaner 
of  all  men  and  means  of  subsistence,  than  had  Xebuchadnezzar 
or  Sennacherib.  Josephus  says  (TFars^  B.  vi.,  c.  9),  with  per- 
haps some  eixaggeration,  that  they  slew  1,100,000  of  the  po]")U- 
lation ;  and  he  recites  many  of  the  cruelties  here  predicted. 

The  prediction  proceeds:  ''Thou  shalt  eat  the  fruit  of  thine 
own  body,  the  flesh  of  thy  sons  and  daughters  which  Jehovah 
thy  God  hath  given  thee,  in  the  siege  and  straitness  where- 
with thy  enemies  shall  straiten  thee"  (53).  The  prediction 
is  repeated  in  the  next  few  verses  wdth  horrifying  details ;  and 
we  have  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  an  eye-witness  (ih.),  that 
these  things  actually  took  place  during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Romans,  whereas  nothing  of  the  kind  is  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  siege  of  iSTebuchadnezzar.  Furthermore, 
the  prediction  goes  on  to  say :  "Ye  shall  be  plucked  from  off  the 
land  whither  thou  goest  in  to  possess  it.  And  Jehovah  shall 
scatter  thee  among  all  peoples,  from  the  one  end  of  the  eartli 
even  to  the  other  end  of  the  earth ;  and  there  shall  ye  serve 
other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known,  thou  nor  thy  fathers, 
even  wood  and  stone."  The  dispersion  effected  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  the  Chaldeans  w^as  far  less  extensive  than  this.  It 
did  not  extend  westward  at  all. 


208  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OP 

Einally,  the  distresses  and  perseeiitions  to  be  endured  after 
the  last  captivity  are  jwrtrayed  by  the  prophet  in  a  style  scarce- 
ly equaled  for  powea*  and  pathos  in  all  the  writings  of  the 
prophets:  "And  among  all  these  nations  thou  shalt  find  no  ease, 
and  there  shall  be  no  rest  f oir  the  sole  of  thy  foot :  but  Jehovah 
shall  give  thee  a  trembling  heart,  and  failing  of  eyes,  and  pin- 
ing of  soul:  and  thy  life  shall  hang  in  doubt  before  thee;  and 
thou  shalt  fear  night  and  day,  and  shalt  have  none  assurance 
of  thy  life:  in  the  morning  thou  shalt  say,  Would  God  it  were 
even !  and  at  even  thou  shalt  say.  Would  God  it  were  morning ! 
for  the  fear  of  thine  heart  which  thou  shalt  fear,  and  for  the 
sight  of  thine  eyes  which  thou  shalt  see"  (63-68). 

The  prediction  does  not  end  even  here.  The  train  of 
thought,  internipted  by  the  twenty-ninth  chapter,  is  resumed 
in  the  thirtieth,  and  the  prophet  adds:  ''And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  when  all  these  things  are  coane  upon  thee,  the  blessing 
and  the  curse,  which  I  set  before  thee,  and  thou  shalt.  call  them 
to  mind  among  all  the  nations,  whither  Jehovah  thy  God 
hath  driven  thee,  and  shalt  return  unto  Jehovah  thy  God,  and 
shalt  obey  his  voice  according  to  all  that  I  command  thee  this 
day,  thou  and  thy  children,  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul;  that  then  Jehovah  thy  God  will  turn  thy  captivity, 
and  have  compassion  upon  theei,  and  will  return  and  gather 
thee  from  all  the  peoples,  whither  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  scatr 
tered  thee.  If  any  of  thine  outcasts  be  in  the  uttermost  jjarts 
of  the  heavens,  from  thence  will  Jehovah  thy  God  gather  the©, 
and  fro'm  thence  will  he  fetch  thee:  and  Jehovah  thy  God  will 
bring  thee  into  the  land  whicli  thy  fathers  possessed,  and  thou 
shalt  possess  it;  and  he  Avill  do  theei  good,  and  multiply  thee 
above  thy  fathers"  (xxx.  1-5).  As  this  gathering  is  to  follow 
the  last  dispersion,  and  as  it  is  to  be  universal,  which  the  re- 
turn from  Babylon  was  not,  it  is  still  in  the  future;  and  it 
guarantees  the  final  restoration  of  Israel  to  her  God,  and  to 
the  land  which  he  swore  to  her  fathers  as  an  everlasting  pos- 
session. 

Xow,  it  was  impossible  for  the  hypothetical  J)  to  have  utr 
tered  these  predictions  unless  he  Avas  miraculously  inspired ; 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  209 

and  if  lie  was  tlius  inspired  it  is  inconceivable  that  lie  would 
have  sought  to  deceive  by  putting  his  own  words  in  the  mouth 
of  Moses.  The  pro'phecy,  then,  must  have  come  from  Moses; 
and  it  is  in  some  respects  the  most  wonderful  prediction  of 
the  future  ever  uttered  by  a  prophet  of  Israel.  It  antedates 
the  j)redictions  of  other  prophets  by  from  six  to  eight  centuries, 
and  it  reaches  furthier  down  the  stream  of  time  than  almost 
any  other.  It  proves  Moses  to  be  the  greatest  prophet  that 
ever  lived  until  the  Prophet  like  unto  Moses  appeared,  in  the 
person  of  thie  Son  of  God. 

§4.     The  Question  of  Featjd. 

1.  The  facts  set  forth  in  the  two'  preceding  sections  neces- 
sarily raise  the  question  whether,  if  Deuteronomy  was  written 
in  the  seventh  century,  the  author  w^as  guilty  of  a  fraud.  Emi- 
nent scholars  who  can.  not  be  charged  with  speaking  through 
ignorant  prejudice,  have  unhesitatingly  affirmed  that  he  w^as. 
Thus,  Edersheim,  speaking  of  this  and  other  deceptions  said 
to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  says : 

If,  in  short,  what  has  gained  for  the  history  of  Israel  pre-eminently 
the  designation  of  sacred  is  mostly  due  to  what  a  later  period  has 
"painted  over  the  original  picture":  then  there  is,  in  plain  language, 
only  one  word  to  designate  all  this.  That  word  is  fraud  iWarburton 
Lectures,  219,  220). 

Principal   Cave,   speaking  of  this  evolution  theory,   says: 

It  requires  the  acceptance  of  the  view  that  the  ascription  of  Deute- 
ronomy to  Moses  by  Deuteronomy  itself,  is  a  literary  expedient;  it 
rquires,  in  short,  belief  in  the  complicity  of  the  holy  men  of  old  in  a 
series  of  pious  frauds  in  authorship  extending  from  the  days  of  Moses 
to  those  of  Ezra  {Insp.  of  0.  T.,  299). 

J.  J.  Lias  says : 

Whether  we  apply  the  strong  term  "forgery"  to  it  or  not,  there  can 
be  little  doubt  on  the  part  of  any  high-minded  man  in  any  age,  that  if  it 
was  composed  in  the  reigns  of  Manasseh  or  Josiah,  its  method  was 
most  dishonest  {Principles  of  Biblical  Criticism,  112). 

Robert  Sinker  says : 

Was  it  [Deuteronomy]  really  a  discovery  of  something  which  had 
been  hidden  presumably  since  the  death  of  Hezekiah,  and  now,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  had  been  brought  to  light  once  more?  Or,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  it  a  fraud? — there  is  no  other  word  to  use  if  the  first 
hypothesis  is  not  true  {Lex  M.,  462). 


210  •  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Stanley  Leathes,  speaking  of  the  author  of  the  book,  says : 

If  he  were  a  priest,  his  work  would  somewhat  resemble  the  modern 
historical  novel,  but  it  could  manifestly  lay  claim  to  no  authority, 
either  in  respect  to  its  historical  statements,  its  legal  precepts,  or  its 
gloomy  forebodings;  but  if  it  was  the  work  of  a  prophet,  then  not  only 
does  he  come  with  no  credentials,  because  unknown,  but  the  very  fact 
of  his  speaking  in  the  name  of  Moses  as  no  one  else*does,  entirely  nulli- 
fies his  authority,  because  he  comes  with  a  lie  in  his  right  hand  and 
offers  it  to  us  as  the  gift  of  God  {Lex  M.,  444). 

We  close  these^  citatiojis^  which  might  be  extemded  much 
further,  with  the  following  from  Principal* Douglas : 

Did  Jehovah,  the  God  of  truth,  make  use  of  deceit  and  forgery, 
in  what  professed  to  be  his  word  by  Moses?  I  believe  that  forgery  is 
an  ugly  word,  and  that  the  critics  dislike  its  use  in  this  connection. 
I  should  be  glad  to  gratify  them  if  1  found  a  pleasant  word  to  express 
my  meaning  (tb.,  60). 

2.  The  Charge  of  Fraud  Admitted.  When  Principal  Doug- 
las, as  quoted  above,  says  that  the  word  ''forgery"  in  this  con- 
nection is  disliked  by  the  critics,  he  means  English  critics  like 
Driver,  Ryle,  Robertson  Smith,  and  others.  It  is  scarcely  true 
of  the  originators  of  this  criticism,  from  whom  these  English 
scholars  have  accepted  it.  The  former  not  only  do  not  deny 
the  charge  of  fraud,  but  they  claim  that  th.is  is  the  true  repre- 
sentation of  the  case.     Kueneoi  says: 

It  is  thus  certain  that  an  author  of  the  serenth  century,  B.  C,  has 
made  Moses  himself  proclaim  that  which,  in  his  opinion,  it  was  expedi- 
ent in  the  interest  of  the  Mosaic  party  to  announce  and  introduce.  At 
a  time  when  notions  about  literary  property  were  yet  in  their  infancy, 
an  act  of  this  kind  was  not  regarded  as  at  all  unlawful.  Men  used 
to  perpetrate  such  fictions  as  these  without  any  qualms  of  conscience 
{Religion  of  Israel,  ii.  19). 

According  to  this,  the  author  was  of  the  "Mosaic  party"  as 

opposed  to  the  party  of  the  "high  places,"  and  he  perpetrated 

his  fiction  to  gain  a  party  advantage.      This  w^as  a  fraudulent 

eleiiiBiiL  hi  the  deception.     Again,  Kuenen  says: 

Deuteronomy  was  not  written  for  the  mere  sake  of  writing,  but  to 
change  the  whole  condition  of  the  kingdom.  The  author  and  his  party 
can  not  have  made  the  execution  of  their  programme  depend  upon  a 
lucky  accident.  If  Hilkiah  found  the  book  in  the  temple,  it  was  put 
there  by  the  adherents  of  the  Mosaic  tendency.  Or  else  Hilkiah  him- 
self was  of  their  number,  and  in  that  case  he  pretended  that  he  had 
found  the  book  of  the  law.  This  provision  for  the  delivery  of  their 
programme  to  the  king  was  of  a  piece  with  the  composition  of  the 
programme  itself.    It  is  true  this  deception  is  much  more  unjustifiable 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  211 

still  than  the  introduction  of  Moses  as  speaking.  But' we  must  leflect 
here,  also,  that  the  ideas  of  those  days  were  not  as  ours,  but  consider- 
ably less  strict.  Now  or  never  the  Mosaic  party  had  to  gain  their 
end  (i&.). 

Kiienen  says  much  more  of  the  same  sort,  but  this  is  enough 
to  show  that  one  of  the  chief  originators  of  the  so-called  critical 
theory  deliberately  pronounces  it  a  fraud  perpetrated  for  ])arty 
advantage.  His  remark  that  men  used  to  perpetrate  such  fic- 
tions without  any  qualms  of  conscience,  is  undoubtedly  true 
of  a  certain  class  of  men,  and  it  is  equally  true  of  a  similar 
class  at  the  preseint  day.  Witness  the  forged  letter  which  came 
so  near  defeating  the  election  of  James  A.  Garfield  tO'  the 
Presidency  of  our  republic.  To  lie  and  cheat  for  party  ad- 
vantage is  in  these  days  called  '^practical  politics."  It  seems, 
if  you  believe  Kuenen,  that  they  had  "practical  politics" 
among  the  Jews  in  the  days  of  Josiah,  and  that  Deuteronomy 
is  one  of  its  products. 

Wellhausen  quotes  Reuss,  the  eminent  French  critic,  as  say- 
ing that  "Deuteronomy  is  the  book  that  the  priests  pretended 
to  find  at  the  temple  in  the  time  of  King  Josiah"  (Prolegomena, 
p.  4)  ;  and  Wellhausen  himself  says,  "In  all  circles  where  ap- 
preciation of  scientific  results  can  be  looked  for  at  all,  it  is 
recognized  that  it  was  composed  in  the  same  age  in  which  it 
was  discovered."  Putting  the  two  together,  we  have  the  asser- 
tion that  the  priests  "pretended"  to  find  it,  knowing  that  it 
had  not  been  lost,  and  that  it  had  been  recently  written.  They 
then,  practiced  an  imposition  on  the  king  and  the  people. 

Prof.  T.  K.  Chejme,  not  a  German  rationalist,  but  an  Eng- 
lish clergyman  and  a  professor  in  Oxford  TJniveirsity,  calls  at- 
tention to  the  assured  fact  that  the  king  was  the  only  person 
wlio  was  "vehemently  moved"  by  the  reading  of  the  book,  while, 
as  he  asserts,  Hilkiah,  Shaphan  and  Huldah  were  imjDerturba- 
ble,  and  adds :  "The  easiest  supposition  is  that  these  three  per- 
sons had  agreed  together,  unknown  to  the  king,  on  their  course 
of  action."  According  to  this,  the  whole  of  the  procedure  on 
the  part  of  these  persons  described  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  was 
a  preconcerted  affair,  and,  strange  to  say,  this  English  clergy- 
man suggests  that  "to  the  priests  and  prophets  who  loved  spirit- 


212  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

iial  religion  God  had  revealed  tliat  now  was  the  time  to  take 
a  bold  step  forward,  and  accomplish  the  work  which  the  noblest 
servants  of  Jehovah  had  so  long  desired"  (Founders  of  0.  T. 
Criticism,  267,  268).  With  respect  to  this  last  remark,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  Dr.  Robert  Skinner  exclaims :  ''It  has  been 
reserved  for  an  Anglican  clergyman  to  make  the  Deity  him- 
self an  instigator  of  the  fraud,  call  it  by  w^hat  2)leasant 
eui>hemisim  we  will"  {Lex.  M.,  464). 

We  now  see  that  the  parties  at  the  two  extremes  of  this 
controversy — those  who  oppose  the  new  theory,  and  those  who 
have  originated  and  developed  it. — are  agreed  in  regarding  the 
book  as  a  fraud  perpetrated  by  the  joint  action  of  its  com- 
posers and  its  pretended  discoverers. 

3.  The  Charge  Denied.  Some  other  scholars,  chiefly  our 
British  and  American  critics,  have  undertaken  to  strike  a 
golden  mean,  and,  while  admitting  that  the  use  of  the  name 
of  Moses  w-as  a  fiction,  to  deny  that  a  fraud  was  perpetrated. 
Professor  Driver  has  made  the  most  elaborate  and  ingenious 
argumeait  on  this  point,  and  we  shall  follow  in  the  main  his 
presentation  of  the  case.  It  is  found  in  his  Introduction,  pages 
89-93.  He  begins  the  discussion  by  the  following  statement 
of  tlie  issue: 

If  it  be  true  that  Deuteronomy  is  the  composition  of  another  than 
Moses,  in  what  light  are  we  to  regard  it?  In  particular,  does  this  view 
of  its  origin  detract  from  its  value  and  authority  as  a  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  Canon?  The  objection  is  commonly  made,  that,  if  this 
be  the  origin  of  the  book,  it  is  a  "forgery;"  the  author,  it  is  said,  has 
sought  to  shelter  himself  under  a  great  name,  and  to  secure  by  fiction 
recognition  or  authority  for  a  number  of  laws  devised  by  himself  (89). 

Strange  to  say,  his  first  argiiment  in  reply  to  this  objec- 
tion is,  that  Deiuteironomy  does  not  claim  to  be  written  by 
Moses :  whenever  the  author  speaks  himself,  he  purports  to  give 
a  description  in  the  third  person  of  what  Moses  did  or  said. 
It  is  sufficient,  in  answer  to  this,  to  refer  the  reader  to  what 
w^e  have  set  forth  in  the  first  division  of  this  section.  But  we 
add  that  Driver's  defense  of  this  allegation,  given  in  a  foot- 
note, is  as  remarkable  as  the  allegation  itself.  He  says :  "Un- 
doubtedly the  tbird  person  may  have  been  used  by  Moses;  but 


^HE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  213 

it  is  unreasonable  to  assert  that  lie  mu^t  have  used  it,  <h-  to 

contend  that  passages  in  which  it  occurs  could  only  have  been 

written  by  him."     The  last  two  clauses  miss  their  mark.     Xo 

one  has  ever  so  asserted  or  contended,  and  the  admission  in 

the  first  clause,  that  Moses  may  have  used  the  third  person, 

empties  the  argument  based  on  this  usage  of  all  the  force  which 

he  imagines  it  to  possess. 

He  does  not  forget  that  in  addition  to  what  is  said  about 

writing   "this  law,"   the   author   asserts  that  Moses   delivered 

orally  its  chief  contents  before  they  were  written;  and  he  aims 

to  set  this  aside  by  the  following  assertions : 

The  true  author  is  thus  the  writer  who  introduces  Moses  in  the 
third  person;  and  the  discourses  which  he  is  represented  as  having 
spoken,  fall  in  consequence  into  the  same  category  as  the  speeches  in 
the  historical  books,  some  of  which  largely,  and  other  entirely,  are 
the  compositions  of  the  compilers  and  are  placed  by  them  in  the 
mouths  of  historical  characters.  This  freedom  in  ascribing  speeches 
to  historical  personages  is  characteristic,  more  or  less,  of  ancient  his- 
torians generally;  and  It  certainly  was  followed  by  Hebrew  histori- 
ans (90). 

If  what  is  here  said  of  Hebrew  historians  is  true,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  a  man  who  had  not  the  slightest  pretense 
of  authority  to  make  laws,  could  without  fraud  write  laws  and 
put  them  into  tlie  mouth  of  an  ancient  lawgiver ;  and  especially, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  law  regarding  altars,  could  abo'lish  the  law 
which  it  is  conceded  that  God  gave  through  Moses,  and,  in 
the  name  of  Moses,  enact  a  different  one — one  Avhich,  accord- 
ing to  our  critics  themselves,  was  intended  to  work  a  complete 
revolution  in  the  divinely  appointed  ritual  of  the  nation.  Pro- 
fessor Driver  very  innocently  overlooks  this  obvious  distinc- 
tion, •r' ' 

But  what  is  the  evidence  that  Hebrew  historians  clid  com- 
pose s|)eeches  and  put  them  in  the  mouths  of  historical  person- 
ages. ''The  proof  lies,"  says  Professor  Driver,  "in  the  great 
similarity  of  style  which  those  speeches  constantly  exhibit  to 
the  parts  of  the  narrative  which  are  evidently  the  work  of  the 
compiler  himself."  This  is  an  old  argument  of  the  enemies  of 
the  Bible.  It  has  been  employed  to  discredit  not  only  Old 
Testament  books,  but  those  of  the  ISTew  Testament  likewise. 


214  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

especially  the  Book  of  Acts  and  tlio  Gospel  of  Joiin.  The  moist 
that  can  be  said  in  its  favor  is,  that  in  reporting  actual  speeches 
the  historians  have  in  so'ine  instances  expressed  the  speaker's 
idea  in  somewhat  different  words ;  but  to  charge  them  with 
putting  S2>eeches  into  the  mouths  of  'men  which  they  never 
uttered  at  all,  is  to  chai'ge  them  with  the  same  fraud  which  is 
charged  upon  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  and  of  which  he 
was  certainly  guilty  if  he  was  not  Mo&es.    Driver  further  says : 

It  is  an  altogether  false  view  of  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  to  treat 
them  as  the  author's  inventions.  .  .  .  On  the  whole,  the  laws  of  Deute- 
ronomy are  unquestionably  derived  from  pre-existent  usage;  and  the 
object  of  the  author  is  to  insist  upon  their  importance,  and  to  supply 
motives  for  their  observance.  The  new  element  in  Deuteronomy  is  not 
the  laws,  but  their  parenetic  setting  (91). 

This  is  certainly  true  of  many  of  these  laws,  especially  of 
those  which  are  mere  repetitions  in  different  words  of  those 
contained  in  Exodus  and  iN^umbers;  but  the  most  distinctive 
law  in  the  whole  book,  and  one  which  abrogated  local  sanctu- 
aries, if  we  believe  Driver  himself  and  all  the  scholars  of  his 
school,  is  confessedly  new,  and  not  only  was  it  new,  but  it 
formally  abolished  the  law  of  sacrifices  which  God  himself 
gave  to  Israel  in  the  beginning.  It  required  the  destruction 
of  all  the  altars  on  high  places  which  had  been  up  to  that  time 
places  of  worship  approved  by  the  law  of  God.  And  this  is 
done,  not,  as  we  have  just  said,  by  any  one  clothed  Avith  author- 
ity, but  by  an  irresponsible  writer  whose  very  name  never  be- 
came public.  And  this  was  not  the  only  new  law  which  this  un- 
authorized author  enacted,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  section  pre- 
ceding this.  This  excuse  for  the  hypothetical  D  is  too  thin 
a  veil  to  cover  his  fraud.  This  is  the  way  the  matter  would 
stand  if  the  fraud  had  stopped  with  the  mere  writing  of  the 
book ;  but  the  worst  part  of  it  is  that  the  author  and  others 
entered  into  a  conspiracy  to  deceive  the  king,  without  which 
the  attempted  re^'olution  would  not  have  been  effected,  and  the 
book  would  have  fallen  still-born. 

Again  our  critic  says : 

Deuteronomy  may  be  described  as  the  prophetic  re-formulation, 
and  adaptation  to  new  needs,  of  an  older  legislation  (91) 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  2lS 

How  can  it  be  thus  described,  when  it  contains  new  laws 
never  before  known  in  Israel ;  when,  as  Driver  himself  2>er- 
sistently  argues,  it  contradicts  many  of  the  provisions  of  the 
older  legislation,  provisions  enacted  by  divine  autho-rity ;  and 
when  those  who  COTitrived  it  had  distinctly  in  view  the  abro- 
gation of  some  of  the  older  laws  ?  When  writing  as  an  apol- 
ogist for  the  book,  he  seems  to  totally  forget  what  he  wrote 
as  its  critic. 

Finally,  we  are  told  that  "there  is  nothing  in  Deuteronoany 
implying  an  interested  or  dishonest  motive  on  the  part  of  the 
post-Mosaic  author:  and  this  being  so,  its  moral  and  spiritual 
greatness  remains  unimpaired ;  its  inspired  authority  is  in  no 
respect  less  than  that  of  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  which  happens  to  be  anonymous"  (i6.).  In  mak- 
ing this  statement,  our  critic  again  forgets  that  on  the  critical 
hypothesis  one  leading  purpose  of  the  party  to  which  D  and 
his  colaborers  belonged,  was  to  gain  a  victory  over  the  priests 
and  worshipers  at  the  high  places,  whose  ritual  had  been  from 
the  days  of  Moses  divinely  authorized,  and  to  concentrate  all 
offerings  and  tithes  at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  Was  this  not 
an  interested  motive  ?  Did  it  not  secure  a  party  triumph  to 
the  so-called  Mosaic  party  ?  And  did  it  not  turn  into  the 
treasury  of  the  Jerusalem  priests  a  revenue  of  which  the 
priests  of  the  high  places  were  by  the  same  act  deprived  ?  And 
this,  too,  an  income  to  which  the  latter  priests  w^ere  by  the 
ancient  law  of  God  clearly  entitled  ?  Suppose  that  a  conspir- 
acy made  up  among  the  Dissenters  in  England,  who  conscien- 
tiously believe  that  the  pfood  of  the  English  people  would  be 
promoted  by  the  disestablishment  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
should  succeed  in  w^riting  and  palming  off  upon  king  and  Par- 
liament a  series  of  discourses  professedly  delivered  by  the 
apostle  Paul,  and  recently  found  in  an  Egyptian  sepulchre, 
condemning  in  most  unmistakable  tenns  the  existence  of  a 
state  church ;  would  the  Anglican  olergy,  on  giving  up  their 
rich  estates  and  endowments,  agree  that  the  authors  of  that 
book  had  no  "interested  or  dishonest  motive"  ?     I  think  not. 


216  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Professor  Driver  is  now,  I  believe,  a  canon  in  that  cliurch. 
The  ease  being  altered  would  alter  the  case. 

It  is  very  strange,  in  view  of  what  our  critic  sajs  of  Deu- 
teronomy in  this  very  defense  of  its  author,  to  hear  him  finally 
speaJ^:  of  the  ^'inspiration"  of  its  author,  and  to  claim  that  this 
is  no  less  than  that  of  any  other  Old  Testament  writer.  It 
■AA'ould  be  interesting  to  see  from  his  pen  a  definition  of  in- 
spiration. We  hear  a  great  deal  in  this  country  about  a  j)i"o- 
h^bition  that  does  not  prohibit,  We  read  a  great  deal  more 
in  the  writings  of  "modern  scientific  critics"  about  an  inspira- 
tion that  did  not  inspire. 

The  allusion  in  the  last  citation  from  Driver,  to  the  ''moral 
and  spiritual  greatness"  of  Deuteronomy,  implies  a  merited 
eulogy  on  this  book.  In  these  respects  it  stands  high  above 
all  other  w^ritings  in  the  Old  Testament,  unless  they  be  some 
of  the  Psalms.  It  is  the  especial  merit  of  Andrew  Harper 
to  exalt  this  element  of  the  book  as  does  no  other  writeir  of  my 
acquaintance.  This  characteristic  lifts  the  author  of  the  book 
as  high  as  heaven  above  the  resort  to  trickery  and  deception 
in  order  to  win  a  cause  against  an  opposing  party.  An  author 
in  the  days  of  Josiah  whose  soul  was  filled  Avitli  such  senti- 
ments, and  cajDable  of  expressing  them  as  he  does,  could  not 
possibly  have  descended  to  the  composition  of  this  book  as  we 
have  it,  and  to  its  publication  under  the  circumstances 
described  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  This  alone  is  sufiicient  proof 
that  the  book  came  as  it  professes  to  have  come,  from  the  heart 
and  brain  of  Moses,  as  that  heart  and  brain  were  fired  and 
guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  in  arguing  the  question  of  fraud,  fol- 
lows close  on  the  track  of  Driver ;  but  he  makes  one  admission 
which  is  worthy  of  note.  Answering  the  argiiment  that  the 
author  of  Kings  and  the  prophet  Jeremiah  w^ould  not  have 
joined  hands  to  deceive  the  people,  even  with  the  pious  end 
in  view^  of  serving  Jehovah  and  saving  the  nation,  he  says: 

This  is  valid  as  against  a  new  code,  but  not  as  against  a  new 
codification  of  an  ancient  code  (H.  C.  of  H.,  87). 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  217 

So  far,  then,  as  the  book  did  contain  a  new  code,  our  argii- 
niient  is  admitted  to  be  valid ;  and  it  is  also  admitted  by  all 
the  critics  that  the  distinctive  feature  of  Deuteronomy,  that 
feature  which  led  to  Josiah's  religious  revolution,  was  new. 
They  insist  that  it  had  never  before  been  heard  of.  Professoir 
Briggs,  then,  should  admit  that  on  his  own  slioiA\'ing  a  fraud 
was  committed  in  which  neither  the  author  of  Kings  nor  the 
prophet  Jeremiah  could  have  joined  hands.  But  tliey  did  join 
hands  in  enforcing  the  law  of  Deuteronomy,  and  this  is  proof 
enough  that  the  book  did  not  originate  as  these  critics  have 
affirmed. 

We  close  this  discussion  by  noticing  a  single  sentence  in 
Andrew  Harper's  argument  on  the  same  question.     He  says: 

If  we  take  into  account  the  character  of  Deuteronomy  as  only  an 
extension  and  adaptation  of  the  book  of  the  covenant  set  in  a  frame- 
work of  affectionate  exhortation,  and  that  all  men  then  believed  that 
the  book  of  the  covenant  was  Mosaic,  we  can  see  better  how  such  action 
might  be  considered  legitimate  {Com.,  30). 

Here  this  writer,  like  Driver  and  Briggs,  forgets  for  the 
moment  that,  according  to  the  critical  hypothesis  which  they 
all  advocate,  Deuteronomy  was  not  a  mere  "expansion  and 
adaptation  of  the  book  of  the  covenant;"  for  it  contained  pro- 
visions contradictoiry  of  some  in  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and 
it  sought  to  abrogate  the  law  in  that  book  authorizing  a  plu- 
rality of  altars,  and  to  substitute  a  law  in  direct  opposition  to 
it.  Furthermore,  as  it  is  here  admitted  that  "all  men  then 
believed  the  book  of  the  covenant  was  Mosaic,"  it  follows  that 
all  men  would  have  been  compelled  to  see  in  this  new  book 
an  attempt  to  abolish  in  the  name  of  Moses  a  law  wdiich  Moses 
had  given,  and  to  do  this  after  Moses  had  been  dead  for  seven 
centuries. 

The  reader  has  now  before  him  in  full  the  attempt  which 
the  intennediary  critics  have  made,  in  opposition  to  the  fathers 
of  their  system  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  antagonists  of  it 
on  the  other,  to  explain  away  the  fraud  involved  in  their  theory 
of  the  origin  of  this  book.  If  fraud  was  not  perpetrated,  the 
book  w^as  written  bv  Moses  as  it  claims  to  have  been. 


218  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

§5.     Positive  Evidence  in  the  Book  of  Joshua. 

1.  Jehovah's  Charge  to  Joshua.  We  find  in  Joshua  a  dii-ect 
continuance  of  the  history  in  Nunibeirs  and  Deuteronomy.  The 
former  closes  with  this  statement:  "These  are  the  comimand- 
ments  and  the  judgements,  which  Jeliovah  commanded  by  the 
hand  of  Moses  unto  the  chikh-en  of  Israel  in  the  plains  of 
Moab  by  the  Jordan  at  Jericho."  The  latter  closed  its  his- 
torical portion,  before  the  account  of  the  death  of  Moees  was 
appended,  with  tlie  statement  that  Moses  wrote  "this  law." 
The  Book  of  Joshua  opens  with  an  address  by  Jehovah  to 
Joshua,  in  which  occurs  this  admonition :  "Only  be  strong  and 
very  courageous,  to  observe  to  do  according  to  all  the  law,  which 
Moses  my  servant  commanded  tliee:  turn  not  from  it  to  the 
right  hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou  mayest  have  good  success 
whithersoever  thou  goest..  This  book  of  the  law  shall  not  de- 
part out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day 
aa4  niglitj  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all  that 
is  written  therein :  for  then  thou  shalt  make  thy  way  pros- 
perous, and  then  thou  shalt  have  good  success"  (i.  7,  8). 
These  words  are  worthy  of  Jehovah,  and  it  is  hard  to  believe 
that  they  were  written  by  some  human  being  and  put  into  his 
mouth.  If  they  w^ere  spoken  as  here  described,  they  make  it 
absolutely  certain  that  when  Joshua  took  command  of  the  hosts 
of  Israel  he  already  held  in  his  hand  the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses. 

We  shall  now  see  how  this  piece  of  histo'ry  is  dealt  with. 

by  our  critics.     Driver  paves  the  way  for  an  explanation  by 

saying : 

In  this  book,  JE,  before  it  was  combined  with  P,  passed  through 
the  hands  of  a  writer  who  expanded  it  in  different  ways,  and  who,  being 
strongly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy,  may  be  termed  the 
Deuteronomic  editor,  and  denoted  by  the  abbreviation  D-.  The  parts 
added  by  this  writer  are  in  most  cases  readily  recognized  by  their 
characteristic  style  (Int.,  104). 

That  tlie  reader  who  is  not  an  expert  in  critical  signs  may 

understand  this,  let  us  remember  that  according  to  the  anisl_\i;i- 

cal  theory  of  the  "Hexateuch"  the  hypothetical  writers  J  and 

E  each  wrote  a  narrative  beginning  with  Adam  and  coming 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUfEROKOMY.  2ld 

down  to  the  death  of  Joshua.     The  two  wore  codnbined  in  one 

by  an  editor,  and  the  resulting-  document  was  JE.     But  our 

Joshua  is  not  the  original  left  by  JE.     Before  it  reached  its 

present  form  it  was  edited  by  an  author  who  made  additions 

to  it  "in  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy,"  and  on  this  account  he  is 

called  D".     He  wrote,  of  course,  after  Deuteronomy  had  beien 

discovered  by  Hilkiah.     All  passages,  therefoa-e,  which  would 

pro\^e  that  the  latter  was  written  befoire  Joshua,  were  added  to 

the  original  Joshua  by  this  D^.      So,  on  the  next  page.  Driver 

says: 

Chapter  i.  is  based  probably  upon  an  earlier  and  shorter  narrative, 
from  which,  for  instance,  the  substance  of  verses  1,  2,  10  and  11  may 
be  derived,  but  in  its  present  form  it  is  the  composition  of  D-. 

And  what  is  the  proof  of  this  ?  The  next  sentence  gives 
it:  "It  is  constructed  almost  entirely  of  phrases  borrowed  from 
Deuteronomy."     Then  follows  a  list  of  these  phrases. 

Let  us  suppose,  now,  that  all  the  phrases  cited,  and  as  many 
more  as  you  please,  were  actually  borrowed  froan  Deuteron- 
omy; and  what  does  it  prove?  It  proves  precisely  what  Dri- 
ver aims  to  prove  by  it,  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  before 
these  passages  in  Joshua  were.  But  that  is  precisely  what  is 
true  if  Deuteronomy  was  written  by  Moses,  Its  bearing,  then, 
on  the  question  whether  Moses  is  the  author  of  Deuteronomy, 
is  absolutely  nil.  It  leaves  the  evidence  from  this  first  chap- 
ter of  Joshua,  that  he  had  in  hand  the  book  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  untouched;  and  this  chapter,  if  it  stood  alone,  would 
prove  conclusively,  to  a  candid  mind,  that  the  book  of  the  law 
came  from  the  hand  of  Moses. 

In  thus  disposing  of  this  evidence,  Driver  has  not  only 
made  an  argimient  that  is  good  for  the  Mosaic  authorship,  but 
he  has  inadvertently  done  the  same  in  another  remark  follow- 
ing the  one  first  quoted  above: 

The  chief  aim  of  these  Deuteronomic  additions  to  JE  is  to  illustrate 
and  emphasize  the  zeal  shown  by  Joshua  in  fulfilling  Mosaic  ordinances, 
especially  the  command  to  extirpate  the  native  population  of  Canaan, 
and  the  success  which  in  consequence  crowned  his  eiforts  (104). 

The  command  "to  extirpate  the  native  population  of  Ca- 
naan" was,  then,  a  "Mosaic  ordinance,"  was  it?     It  certainly 


^20  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

was.  But  it  is  found  ouly  in  Deuteronomy.  In  the  other 
books  there  is  the  command  to  ^'drive  them  out"  (Ex.  xxiii.  27- 
33;  Num.  xxxiii.  50-56),  but  only  in  Deuteronoimy  is  found 
the  command  to  extirpate  th.em  (xx.  16-18).  This,  then,  is 
"the  Mosaic  ordinance"  the  fulfilling  of  which  showed  the  zeal 
of  Joshua,  and  tlius  Driver  has  inadvertently  admitted  that 
Deuteronomy  is  Mosaic.  Men  often  reveal  the  truth  by  their 
very  efforts  to  conceal  it.  The  case  is  much  like  that  in  the 
old  story  of  the  man  who  was  sued  by  his  neighbor  for  a  kettle 
which  he  had  boii'owed  and  sent  hoane  witli  a  crack  in  it.  His 
plea  before  the  magistrate  was  tliis:  "In  the  first  place,  may 
it  please  Your  Honor,  I  ne%^er  borrowed  the  kettle.  In  the 
second  place,  it  was  cracked  when  I  got  it.  In  the  third  place, 
it  was  sound  Avhen  I  took  it  home." 

2.  The  Case  of  the  Altar  Ed.  The  twenty-second  chapter 
of  Joshua  contains  a  narrative  wliic'h,  if  true,  demonstrates  the 
pre-existence  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  therefore  its 
Mosaic  origin.  It  does  so  by  showing  that  the  distinctive  legis- 
lation of  Deuteronomy  as  interpreted  by  destructive  critics, 
the  restriction  of  sacrifices  underr  the  law  to  one  central  altar, 
existed  and  was  in  force  wlien  Joshua  succeeded  Moses.  The 
warriors  of  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  whose  homes  had  been 
assigned  them  east  of  the  Jordan,  having  served  with  their 
brethren  through  the  war  of  conquest,  are  dismissed  by  Joshua 
with  his  blessing,  and  they  marcli  away  to  tiheir  families  (1-8). 
When  they  reach  the  vicinity  of  the  Jordan  they  build  an  al- 
tar, probably  on  a  mountain  overlooking  the  Jordan  valley,  so 
large  that  it  is  styled  in  the  quaint  phraseology  of  the  text, 
"a  great  altar  to  see  to"  (ix.  10).  The  report  of  this  under- 
taking spreads  like  wild-fire  through  all  the  tribes,  "and  the 
whole  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel  gathered  them- 
selves together  at  Shiloh,  to  go  up  against  them  to  wao?"  (xi. 
12).  This  shows  that  the  erection  of  another  altar  than  the 
one  constructed  by  Moses,  was  held  to  be  unlawful,  and  to  such 
a  degree  criminal  as  to  justify  making  war  on  those  who  might 
be  guilty  of  it. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  221 

At  this  point  aiiotlier  law,  the  denial  of  the  existence  of 
which  at  this  early  date  is  coinmon  with  our  critics,  is  care*- 
fully  O'bserv'ed.  It  is  the  law  that  when  Israel  should  hea,r 
that  any  city  of  their  people  had  turned  away  to  idoflatry  they 
should  "inquire,  aud  make  search,  and  ask  diligently,"  and 
"if  it  be  true,  and  the  thing  certain,"  they  should  go  and  smite 
the  inhabitants  and  utterly  destroy  the  city  (Deut.  xiii.  12-18). 
Believing  that  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  were  erecting  this 
altar  as  an  act  of  rebellion  against  Jehovah  (verse  16),  and 
that  the  law  just  cited  was  applicable  in  the  case,  the  i>eople 
sent  Phinehas,  who  was  yet  alive,  with  ten  princes,  one  repre- 
senting each  of  the  tribes,  to  make  the  careful  inquiry  enjoined 
by  this  law  (13-20). 

The  remonstrance  was  met  by  a  most  emphatic  and  indig- 
nant denial  that  they  were  erecting  the  altar  for  the  purpose 
of  offering  on  it  any  kind  of  sacrifice ;  and  the  respondents 
admit  that  if  they  were,  they  would  not  deserve  to  be  spared 
(21-24).  They  state  their  real  purpose  to  be  the  erection  of 
a  monument  to  bear  witness  in  coming  ages  that  they,  although 
separated  from  the  main  body  of  the  nation  by  the  river  and 
its  deep  valley,  were  a  constituent  part  of  the  people  who  of- 
fered sacrifice  to  Jehovah  on  an  altar  of  this  pattern  (24-29). 
The  deputation  was  pleased  with  the  answer,  Phinehas  pro- 
nounced a  benediction  on  the  builders,  and  all  Israel  was  de- 
lighted when  the  commissioners  returned  and  made  their  re- 
port (30-34). 

Now,  whoever  wrote  this  account,  and  whatever  date  may 
be  assigned  to  the  Book  of  Joshua,  if  the  account  is  true,  all 
debate  about  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Book  of  Deuteron- 
omy ought  here  to  terminate. 

But  let  us  hear  how  the  destructive  critics  dispose  of  this 
evidence.  Of  course,  they  must  dispose  of  it  or  give  up  their 
whole  contention  about  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy.  Robert- 
son Smith  says  of  it: 

Chap.  xxii.  9-34  is  a  very  peculiar  piece,  which  has  its  closest 
parallel  in  Judges  xx.  Both  chapters  are  for  the  most  part  post- 
priestly,  and  certainly  not  historical   (0.  T.,  413). 


222  THE    AUTHORSHif    OF 

No  reason  whatever  does  he  assi^  for  this  decision.  But, 
reason  or  no  reason,  he  was  forced  to  tlie  decision  tO'  prevent 
his  theory  from  breaking  down.  It  was  a  case  of  necessity 
somewhat  like  that  of  Uncle  Remns's  rabbit : 

"Br'er  Fox  was  chasing  Br'ei*  Rabbit,  and  getting  closer 
and  closer,  closer  and  closer,  so  Br'er  Rabbit  dumb  a  tree." 

"Hold  on,  Uncle  Remus,"  said  the  little  boy  who  was  listen- 
ing, "you  know  a  rabbit  can't  olunb  a  tree." 

"I  know  he  can't,  honey,  but  dat  rabbit  was  'hleeged  to 
climb  a  tree." 

Professor  Driver  treats  the  passage  with  a  little  more  re- 
spect.    He  says: 

The  source  of  verses  9-34  is  uncertain.  The  phraseology  is  in  the 
main  that  of  P;  but  the  narrative  does  not  display  throughout  the 
characteristic  style  of  P,  and  in  some  parts  of  it  there  occur  expressions 
which  are  not  those  of  P.  Either  a  narrative  of  P.  has  been  combined 
with  elements  from  another  source  in  a  manner  which  makes  it 
difficult  to  effect  a  satisfactory  analysis,  or  the  whole  of  it  is  the  work 
of  a  distinct  writer,  whose  phraseology  is  in  part  that  of  P,  but  not 
entirely  (Int.,  113). 

.  This  is  foggy  enough  for  any  Geraian  author.  If  it  is  the 
best  that  the  clear-headed  Driver  can  do,  Ro'bertson  Smith 
might  well  say,  as  quoted  above,  that  the  passage  is  "a  very 
peculiar  piece."  If  Driver  could  settle  down  cm.  the  assertion 
that  P  wrote  it,  this  would  place  its  origin  nearly  a  thousand 
years  after  the  days  of  Joshua  and  Phinehas,  and  it  would  be 
equivalent  to  Robertson  Smith's  flat  assertion  that  it  is  cer- 
tainly unhistoirical.  But  Driver  can  not  do'  this.  He  nms 
about  through  the  fog  trying  to  find  a  place  for  it,  and  finally 
drops  it.,  nobody  knows  where. 

Professor  Bennett,  editor  of  the  Polychrome  Joshua,  suc- 
ceeds no  better  than  Smith  or  Driver.  After  remarking  that 
"the  problem  of  this  section  is  very  diificult,"  he  says : 


'& 


As  it  bears  no  sufficient  marks  of  having  passed  through  the  hands 
of  the  Deuteronomic  editor,  we  gather  that  the  story  in  its  original 
form  did  not  seem  to  him  of  an  edifying  character,  and  was  therefore 
omitted  from  his  edition  of  Joshua   (Notes  on  Joshua,  in  loco). 

This  Deuteronomic  editor,  then,  called  by  Driver  and 
others  D^,  wrote  an  "edition  of  Joshua"  !      This  sto^ry  was  al- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTEUO.\OMY.  223 

ready  in  existence,  and  D^  had  seen  it,  but,  seeing  notliinji; 
edifying  in  it,  lie  left  it  oiut  oi"  his  book.  But  why  could  he 
see  nothing  edifying  in  it,  when  it  so  completely  confirmed 
his  own  assumption  that  Deuteronomy  came  from  Moses,  and 
when  it  presented  Phinehas,  the  tw^o  and  a  half  tribes,  and  all 
Israel  as  displaying  a  devotion  to  the  law  of  God,  and  a  re- 
gard foir  one  another,  that  is  truly  edifying?  This  is  a  lame 
excuse  invented  to  account  for  an  assumption  that  is  lamer 
still.     Bennett  adds: 

The  original  story  can  not  therefore  have  had  for  its  moral  the 
obligation  to  restrict  Israel  to  a  single  altar;  for  to  establish  this 
restriction  is  a  main  object  of  Deuteronomy. 

This  means,  that  if  the  Deuteronomic  editor  had  seen  in 
the  story  tlie  purpose  to  restrict  Israel  to  one  altar,  he  would 
have  copied  it  into  his  edition  of  Joshua.  Well,  if  he  could 
not  see  that,  he  was  blind ;  for  Roberrtson  Smith  saw  it.  Driver 
sees  it,  Bennett  sees  it  and  everybody  now  living  can  see  it. 
It  is  as  plain  as  the  sun  in  the  sky.  These  two  autliors  would 
have  done  betterr  to  follow  Smith's  plan,  deny  the  truth  of 
the  story,  and  stO'p  there.  Smith  saw,  no  doubt,  that  to  go 
further  would  be  to  run  intO'  a  fog  bank,  and  he  prudently 
kept  out.  The  rabbit  might  have  run  into  a  briar  patch,  but 
there  the  fox  would  have  caught  him;  so  it  was  prudent  in 
Uncle  Remus  to  let  him  climb  a  tree. 

3.  The  Devoted  in  Jericho.  When  Jehovah  gave  direc- 
tions about  the  destniction  of  Jericho,  he  is  said  to  have  ut- 
tered tliese  words:  "The  city  shall  be  devoted,  even  it  and  all 
that  is  therein,  to  Jehovah:  only  Rahab  the  harlot  shall  live, 
she  and  all  that  are  with  her  in  the  house,  because  she  hid 
the  messengers  that  we  sent.  And  ye,  in  anywise  keep  your- 
selves from  the  devoted  thing,  lest  when  ye  have  devoted  it, 
ye  take  of  the  devoted  thing:  so  shall  ye  make  the  camp  of 
Israel  devoted,  and  trouble  it"   (vi.   17,  18). 

Xow,  without  some  preceding  instruction  in  reference  to 
the  meaning  of  the  word  "devoted,"  this  command  would  have 
been  very  obscure,  even  if  it  had  been  at  all  intelligible  to  Is- 
rael.    It  is  now  obscure  to  manv  a  Bible  reader  who  has  not 


224  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

learned  something  of  it  elseiwhere.  All  such  readers  have  to 
take  it  for  g-ranted  that  a  command  on  which  the  lifo  of  every 
man  in  the  camp  might  be  involved  was  understood  by  the 
people,  though  he  can  not  clearly  understand  it  himself.  But 
what  previous  source  of  understanding  did  the  people  have  on 
the  subject?  If  they  wei'e  already  in  possession  of  the  Books 
of  Leviticus  and  Deuteironomy,  all  was  plain  enough;  for  in 
the  former  they  would  have  read,  "!N'o  devoted  thing,  that  a 
man  shall  devote  unto  Jehovah  of  all  that  he  hath,  whether  of 
man  or  beast,  or  of  the  field  of  his  possession,  shall  be  sold 
or  redeemed :  every  devoted  thing  is  most  holy  unto  Jehovah. 
None  devoted,  which  shall  be  devoted  of  men,  shall  be  ran- 
somed; he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death"  (Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29). 
And  in  the  latter  they  w'ould  have  read:  "But  of  the  cities  of 
these  peoples,  which  Jehovah  thy  God  giveth  thee  for  an  in- 
heritance, thou  shalt  save  alive  nothing  that  breatheth:  but 
thou  shalt  utterly  destroy  [devote]  them"  (xx.  16,  17).  By 
these  two  books  of  the  law  the  people  would  have  known  what 
it  meant  to  devote  any  j>erson  or  thing,  and  from  the  latter 
especially  they  w^ould  have  known  that  the  cities  of  Canaan 
were  to  be  thus  devoted.  It  follo^vs,  that  if  this  account  in 
Joshua  is  true,  these  laws  existed  before  Joshua  Ujok  Jericho, 
and  consequently  that  they  came,  as  they  professed  to  have 
come,  from  the  hand  of  Moses. 

This  conclusion  being  fatal  to  the  critical  hypothesis,  our 
critics  are  compelled  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  story.  We  should 
expect  them  in  this  instance,  as  in  the  two  disposed  of  above, 
to  ascribe  the  account  to  J)",  or  to  some  other  writer  of  later 
date  than  Deuteronomy.  But  this  is  not  their  device.  For 
some  reason  best  known  to  themselves,  they  assign  the  story 
to  JE,  the  composite  document  that  was  in  circulation  before 
Deuteronomy  was  found  by  Hilkiah.  (See  Driver,  Int.,  106; 
D.  of  H.;  Addis,  106,  cf.  210.)  To  the  full  extent  that  this 
assignment  has  any  probability,  it  is  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
early  date  of  both  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  and  evidence 
furnished  by  the  critics  themselves. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  225 

Tho  Poilydiroaiie  JosJiua  changes  colors  thirty-eight  times 
to  represent  tlie  manj  sources  whence  some  later  critics  imagine 
the  twenty-seven  verses  of  this  chapter  to  have  been  derived. 
This  is  one  of  the  coimtless  absurdities  in  which  the  analytical 
critics  involve  themselves. 

4.  The  Altar  at  Mount  Ebal,  and  th,e  Reading.  The 
account  of  this  well-known  transaction  is  given  in  Josh.  viii. 
30-35.  It  is  introduced  with  these  statements:  "Then  Joshua 
built  an  altar  unto  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel,  in  moomt  Ebal, 
as  Moses  the  servant  of  God  commanded  the  children  of  Israel, 
as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  an  altar  of 
unhewn  stones,  upon  which  no  man  had  lift  up  any  iron:  and 
they  offered  thereon  burnt  offerings  unto  Jehovah,  and  peace 
offerings." 

Here  it  is  expressly  stated  that  this,  and  the  rest  of  these 
proceedings,  had  been  commanded  by  Moses,  "as  it  is  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  But  the  only  book  in  which 
such  an  order  was  written,  is  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (xi.  29 ; 
xxvii.  1-14).  If,  then,  the  account  in  Joshua  is  not  false;  if, 
in  other  words,  Joshua  actually  built  this  altar,  and  conducted 
the  other  proceedings  here  described,  then  beyond  all  possibil- 
ity of  doubt  the  Book  of  Deuteronoany  came  from  Moses. 
There  is  no  way  in  which  to  avoid  this  conclusion  except  by 
robbing  this  account  of  all  truthfulness.  This  the  destructive 
critics  do  without  hesitation.  It  is  with  them  another  case 
of  necessity.  They  ascribe  the  accoimt  to  D^  (Driver,  106). 
This  means  that,  after  tlie  publication  of  Deuteronomy  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  an  editor  "imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Deuter 
ronomy"  got  out  a  nevv'-  editioai  of  Joshua.,  and  insea-ted  in  it 
this  account  And  why  did  he  insert  it  ?  He  could  have  had 
no  motive  except  to  make  it  appear  that  the  command  in  Dem- 
teronomy  was  obeyed  by  Joshua;  and  this,  when  he  knew  that 
Deuteronomy  was  ^vritten  centuries  after  the  death  of  Joshua, 
and  that  Joshua  had  ne\^er  heard  of  such  a  command.  In 
other  words,  ^Moses  had  been  falsely  represented  in  Deuteron- 
omy as  having  given  this  command,  and  then,  to  bolster  up 
this  false  ascription  to  Moses,  Joshua  is  falsely  represented 


226  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

as  obeying  the  command.  All  this  was  done,  and  yet  our 
apologetical  critics  insist  that  no  fraud  was  committed.  It  is 
becoming  wearisome  to  note  Ikav  often  these  critics  deliberately 
set  aside,  as  nntrne,  pieces  of  histoa-y  for  no^  other  reason  than 
that  they  conflict  with  their  critical  theory.  They  persist  in 
this  unscientific  method  in  the  boasted  naime  of  "modern  scien- 
tific criticism." 

5.  The  Doom  of  the  Gibeonites.  The  account  in  the  ninth 
chapter  of  Joshua  of  the  cunning  device  of  the  Gibeonites, 
contains  another  proof  that  Joshua  was  in  possesion  of  tlie 
Book  of  Deuteronomy.  It  uproots,  at  one  blow,  two  of  the 
"assured  results"  of  "modern  scientific  criticism."  Three 
times  in  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  it  is  asserted,  once  in 
the  words  of  Joshua,  and  twice  in  those  of  the  author,  that 
the  Gibeonites  were  doomed  to  be  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers 
of  water.  It  is  expressed,  the  third  time,  in  these  words: 
"And  Joshua  made  them  that  day  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers 
of  water  for  the  congregation,  and  for  the  altar  of  Jehovah, 
unto  this  day,  in  the  plaee  which  he  should  choose"  (verse  27). 
In  the  lips  of  Joshua,  pronouncing  the  sentence,  the  expression 
is,  "hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the  house  of 
my  God"  (23). 

If  tliis  account  is  true,  it  follows  that  the  tabeimacle  here 
called  by  Joshua  "the  house  of  my  God,"  had  a  real  existence, 
contrary  to  the  united  voice  of  the  destructive  critics.  It  fol- 
lows also,  that  Israel  then  had,  in  contradistinction  to  the  many 
altars  of  the  critics,  one  styled  "the  altar  of  Jehovah ;"  and 
that  to  this  the  Gibeonites  were  to  bring  water  and  wood  "in 
the  i>lace  which  he  should  choose.'"  This  evidence  is  so  obvi- 
ous and  so  incontrovertible  that  the  critics  are  again  compelled, 
by  the  demands  of  their  foregone  conclusions,  to  pronounce 
it  falsa  They  ascribe  the  twenty-seventh  verse  to  JE,  thus 
admitting  its  existence  before  the  date  they  assign  to  D,  though 
only  as  a  tradition ;  but  they  detach  the  last  clause,  "in  the 
place  which  he  shall  choose,"  and  assign  it  to  D^  (Driver,  Int._ 
107).  To  such  trifling  they  find  it  necessary  to  descend,  in 
order  to  keep  Deuteronomy  this  side  of  Joshua.       The  Poly- 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  227 

chrome  Joshua  disposes  of  this  clause  in  the  same  way,  and 
it  changes  colors  twenty-one  times  in  representing  the  various 
sources  of  this  account  of  the  Gibeonites. 

6.  The  Cities  of  Eefuge.  In  Josh.  xx.  1,  2,  we  read: 
"And  Jehovah  spake  to  Joshua,  saying,  Speak  to  the  children 
of  Israel,  saying,  Assign  you  the  cities  of  refuge,  whereof  I 
s-pake  unto  you  by  the  hand  of  Moses ;"  and  this  is  followetl 
by  the  account  of  formally  setting  apart  six  cities,  which  are 
named  (7,  8).  Now,  unless  some  one  has  here  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Jehovah  words  which  he  never  uttered,  and  which 
are  not  true,  he  had,  previously  to  this  time,  given  command- 
ment "by  the  hand  of  Aloses"  respecting  the  assignment  of 
these  cities.  As  the  Pentateuch  now  stands,  the  first  command 
on  the  subject  is  in  the  thirty-fifth  chapter  of  Numbers. 
There  the  order  to  appoint  cities  of  refuge  is  given,  the  number 
of  them  is  stated,  and  the  law  by  which  their  use  is  to  be  regu- 
lated is  elaborated.  No  one  of  the  cities  is  named.  Next,  in 
Dent.  iv.  41-43,  it  is  said  that  Moses,  after  the  conquest  of  the 
country  east  of  the  Jordan,  selected  three  of  them,  and  their 
names  are  given.  Next,  in  Dent.  xix.  1-13,  Moses  directs  that 
after  they  shall  have  possessed  the  country  west  of  the  Jordan, 
they  shall  select  three  cities  of  refuge  on  that  side;  he  repeats 
the  law  less  elaborately,  and  orders  that  if  Jehovah  shall  enlarge 
their  borders,  and  give  them  all  the  land  promised  to  their 
fathers,  they  shall  add  three  other  cities  on  that  side,  so  that 
all  manslayers  may  have  the  benefit  of  a  place  of  refuge.  Their 
borders  were  never  thus  extended  until  the  reign  of  David, 
and  they  remained  so  only  till  the  close  of  Solomon's  reign, 
and  consequently  these  three  additional  cities  were  never 
appointed. 

Now,  whatever  may  be  the  origin  of  the  words  quoted  above 
from  Joshua,  they  refer  back  to  these  passages  in  Numbers 
and  Deuteronomy;  or,  at  least,  to  the  latter.  If  God  actually 
spoke  them,  as  is  here  asserted,  then  Deuteronomy,  or  Num- 
bers, or  both,  had  certainly  been  ^\Titten  before  Joshua  selected* 
the  three  western  cities.  On  the  other  hand,  if  these  books 
had  not  been  alreadv  written,  then  some  edito-r  who  lived  after 


22§  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

they  were  -written,  put  tliese  words  into  the  mouth  of  Jehovah 
— words  which  he  never  uttered — for  the  purpose  of  making 
people  believe  that  Deoiteronoimy  did  precede  Joshua,  and  did 
come  from  the  hand  of  Moses.  Thus  again  the  critics  are 
found  giiilty  of  repudiating  a  piece  of  history  which  stands 
in  the  way  of  their  theory.  This  false  ascription  of  words 
to  Jehovah  is  credited  to  P,  the  writer  of  the  laws  in  lum- 
bers, who  wrote  after  the  Babylonian  exile  (Driver,  Int.,  112; 
Poly.  Josh.,  in  loco). 

7.  The  Levitical  Cities,  In  the  twieoity-first  chapter  of 
Joshua  we  have  an  account  of  the  distribution  of  forty-eight 
cities  among  the  Levites,  and  it  is  preceded  by  this  statement: 
''Then  came  near  the  heads  of  the  fathers'  houses  of  the  Levites 
unto  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  unto  Joshua  the  son  of  Xun,  and 
unto  the  heads  of  the  fathers'  houses  of  the  tribes  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel ;  and  they  spake  unto  theim  at  Shiloh  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  saying,  Jehovah  commanded  by  the  hand  of 
Moses  to  give  us  cities  to  dwell  in,  with  thei  suburbs  thereof 
for  our  cattle."  This  command  is  found  in  IN'um.  xxxv.  1-8. 
Did  the  Levites  thus  come  to  Eleazar  and  Joshua,  and  the 
elders,  with  their  petition  ?  Did  they  thus  say  that  Jehovah 
had  commanded  "by  the  hand  of  Moses"  that  the  cities  should 
be  given  them  ?  With  one  voice  the  destructive  critics  answer, 
No.  This  piece  of  history  must  be  rejected ;  and  why  ?  Be^ 
cause  it  demands  the  pre-existence  of  the  Book  of  Numbers. 
And  if  it  is  not  true,  by  whom  and  for  what  purpose  was  it 
written  in  this  book  ?  The  answer  is  that  it  was  written  by 
P,  a  thousand  years  after  Joshua,  and  for  the  purpose  of  still 
further  leading  the  readers  of  Joshua  to  accept  the  deception 
that  Numbers  preceded  Joshua  and  came  from  Moses.  And 
yet,  no  fraud  was  perpetrated ! 

After  this  review  of  the  evidence  for  the  Mosaic  author^ 

ship  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  earlier  law-books  which  is  fur- 

*  nished  by  the  Book  of  Joshua,  the  reader  can  more  adequately 

appreciate   the   remark   of  Robertson   Smith,    ''I   exclude   the 

Book  of  Joshua."     (See  page  137.) 


the  book  of  deuteronomy.  229 

§6.  In  the  Book  of  Judges. 

In  answering  the  charge  of  Robertson  Smith  that  the  whole 
Book  of  Judges  is  Levitically  false  (Part  First,  §7.  3),  I  have 
not  only  refuted,  I  think,  every  argument  in  support  of  that 
charge,  but  I  have  turned  some  of  them  into  evidence  to  the 
contrary.  There  remain  for  notice  in  the  jwesent  section 
only  a  few  passages  which  clearly  imply  that  the  law  was  well 
known  during  the  constant  violation  of  some  of  its  precepts  in 
that  period. 

1.  We  cite,  first,  Jehovah's  quotation  of  his  own  former 
words.  Speaking  through  the  angel  at  Bochim,  he  declared: 
"I  said  I  ^vill  never  break  my  covenant  with  you :  and  ye  shall 
make  no  covenant  with  the  people  of  this  land ;  ye  shall  break 
down  their  altars:  but  ye  have  not  hearkened  to  my  voice:  why 
have  ye  done  this  ?  Wherefore  I  also  said,  I  will  not  drive  them 
out  from  before  you ;  but  they  shall  be  as  thorns  in  your  side, 
and  their  gods  shall  be  a  snare  to  you"  (ii.  1-3).  Here  are 
three  things  which  Jehovah  declares  that  he  had  said  to  them 
before.  But  when  had  he  said  them  ?  The  first,  "I  will 
never  break  my  covenant  with  you,"  is  found  in  Lev.  xxvi.  44 ; 
the  second,  ''Ye  shall  make  no  covenant  with  the  people  of 
the  land,"  is  found  in  Ex.  xxiii.  32,  and  also  in  Deut.  vii.  2; 
and  the  third,  "I  will  not  drive  them  out  before  you,"  in  Josh. 
xxiii.  13.  The  words  employed  assume  that  the  people 
addressed  had  knowledge  that  Jehovah  had  said  these  things. 
They  could  doubtless  remember  having  heard  the  utterance 
that  is  found  in  Joshua ;  but  the  passages  in  Exodus,  Leviticus 
and  Deuteronomy  were  uttered  before  any  of  the  generation 
addressed  by  the  angel  were  born.  Their  source  of  informa- 
tion, then,  must  have  been  the  written  documents;  and  from 
this  we  are  safe  in  inferring  that  these  three  books  came  from 
Moses. 

There  is  just  one  way  to  evade  the  force  of  this  evidence, 
and  that  is  the  one  usual  with  our  critics,  to  deny  the  reality 
of  the  angel's  visit  and  rebuke.  In  the  Polychrome  Judges 
the  account  is  relegated  to  an  author  or  editor  who  wrote  after 


230  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  Babylonian  exile  (p.  3;  cf.  46).  What  motive  could  have 
prompted  a  writer  at  this  date  to  invent  and  add  this  story, 
is  not  stated  even  conjecturally ;  but  the  motive  which  prompts 
the  modern  scientific  critic  to  invent  this  conjectural  editor, 
and  to  charge  him  with  inventing  this  story,  is  quite  manifest. 
As  the  passage  stands,  it  falsifies  the  theory  of  the  late  origin 
of  the  books  which  it  refers  to,  and  it  must  be  gotten  rid  of 
at  any  cost  of  reason  and  common  sense. 

In  view  of  these  quotations  from  Exodus,  Leviticus  and 
Deuteronomy,  it  may  be  well  in  passing  to  notice  De  Wette^s 
reckless  statement  that  "the  book  [Judges]  contains  no  direct 
reference,  or  even  allusion,  to  the  Pentateuch  and  Book  of 
Joshua"  (quoted  by  Valpey  French,  Lex  Mosaica,  127). 
Even  G.  F.  Moore,  editor  of  the  Polychrome  Judges,  admits 
that  the  speech  ascribed  to  the  angel  is  "made  up  of  reminis- 
cences from  Exodus,  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua"   (51). 

2.  The  Xazarite  Vow.  When  the  angel  of  Jehovah 
appeared  to  the  wife  of  Manoah  to  announce  the  birth  of  Sam- 
son, he  said  to  her,  "^o  razor  shall  come  upon  his  head :  for 
the  child  shall  be  a  Xazirite  unto  God  from  the  womb"  (xiii. 
5).  The  woman  understood  this,  and  so  did  her  husband  when 
it  was  told  to  him.  But  how  did  they  know  what  a  Xazirite 
was?  The  word  is  not  found  in  any  earlier  portion  of  the 
Scriptures,  except  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  ]Srumbers,  where  the 
law  of  the  !N^azirite  vow  is  given.  If  that  law  had  been  given 
by  Moses,  all  is  explained ;  but,  if  not,  there  is  no  explanation 
of  the  fact  that  Manoah  and  his  wife  both  knew  at  once  what 
a  Nazirite  was.  They  evidently  knew  also  the  connection 
between  being  a  Nazirite  and  not  having  a  razor  to  come  upon 
his  head. 

We  should  naturally  suppose  that  the  critics  would  ascribe 
this  account  to  some  editor  who  lived  after  the  date  which  they 
assign  to  the  Book  of  Nimibers,  and  thus  prevent  it  from 
proving  the  early  date  of  that  book.  But  no,  they  unitedly 
ascribe  it  to  J,  as  one  of  the  traditions  which  had  come  down, 
orally  through  several  centuries.  Robertson  Smith  tries  to 
account  for  it  by  the  custom  of  ancient  peoples  burning  their 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  231 

hair  as  a  sign  of  mourning,  or  as  an  offering  to  soiue  god. 
But  this  is  a  palpable  failure;  for  Samson  ncA^er  burnt  his 
hair,  but  wore  it  until  the  treacherous  Delilah  cut  it  o^ff;  ajid 
even  then  there  is  no  account  of  its  being  burned.  Professor 
Briggs  argues  that  Samson  could  not  have  been  under  the 
JSTazirite  vow  of  iSTumbers,  because  he  handled  the  jaw-bone 
of  an  ass,  whereas  the  ISTaririte  of  Numbers  was  forbidden 
to  touch  anything  imclean.  But  the  professor  strangely  foa'- 
gets  that  Samson  was  not  very  scrupulous  about  keeping  the 
law,  and  even  if  he  had  been  ever  so  scnipulous,  when  more 
than  a  thousand  Philistines  were  rushing  at  him  to  kill  him, 
and  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass  was  the  only  weapon  in  sight,  he 
could  not  hesitate  to  us©  it.  If  Professor  Briggs  were  a  China- 
man, and  about  as  well  instructed  in  American  customs  as  he 
is  in  the  Scriptures,  on  reading  in  a  newspaper  that  an  Amer- 
ican had  drawn  from  his  pocket  a  pistol  and  killed  his  assail- 
ant, he  would  exclaim,  That  can  not  be  true;  for  in  America 
it  is  unlawful  for  a  man  tO'  carry  a  pistol  in  his  pocket !  Prof. 
G.  F.  Moore,  in  Polychrome  Judges,  says  that  the  "stories  of 
Samson,"  as  he  styles  them,  "more  clearly  than  any  other  tales 
in  the  book,  bear  the  marks  of  popular  origin,  and  doubtless 
had  been  rei)eated  by  generations  of  Israelite  story-tellers  be- 
fore they  were  first  written  down"  (p.  82).  They  doubtless 
had  been  repeated  in  every  Jewish  houseliold  until  the  time 
that  the  hypothetical  J  is  supposed  to  have  lived ;  and  the  best 
way  to  account  for  this  is  that  they  were  written  in  the  Book 
of  Judges  so  that  they  could  not  be  forgotten.  They  have  been 
repeated  in  every  Jewish  and  every  Christian  household,  to 
the  great  delight  of  the  small  boy,  down  to  the  present  day, 
and  they  will  be  until  the  end  of  time ;  and  they  are  so  repeated 
just  because  they  are  in  a  book  which  is  supposed  to  be  trutb- 
fuL  But  the  question  still  remains.  How  did  the  story-tellers 
who  first  began  to  tell  these  stories  in  ancient  Israel  know 
anything  about  the  Xaririte  vow,  so>  as  to  put  both  Samson 
and  his  mother  under  its  restrictions?  If  there  is  any  other 
5ins\\or  than  that  they  knew  it  because  it  had  been  given  by 
Moses  and  written  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  none  such  worthy 


232  THE   AUTHORSHIP   OF 

of  a  momeoit's  consideration  has  yet  been  discovered  by  our 
erudite  and  industrious  critics.^^  If  they  have  not  found  it 
yet,  when  will  they?  And  until  they  do,  all  the  discredit 
which  they  can  cast  upon  the  story  will  never  rob  it  of  its 
proof  that  the  law  of  the  ISTazirite  was  given  by  Moses,  and 
that  the  book  in  which  it  is  written  was  from  his  pen.  (See 
Valpey  French,  Lex  Mosaica,  157-160.) 

3.  Peace-offerings.  After  the  second  battle  of  the  other 
tribes  against  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  the  former  offered  burnt 
offerings  and  peace-offerings  (xx.  26),  and  they  did  the  same 
after  the  last  battle  (xxi.  4).  This  was  while  Phinehas,  the 
grandson  of  Aaron,  was  still  alive  (xx.  27),  and  consequently 
many  persons  wexQ  still  alive  who  had  lived  with  Moses.  Now, 
the  burnt  offering  is  the  only  one  in  which  the  whole  flesh 
of  the  animal  was  burned  on  the  altar,  while  the  peace-offering 
is  the  one  of  which  none  of  the  flesh  was  burned.  The 
former  had  been  known  since  the  days  of  Cain  and  Abel;  but 
the  latter  was  a  creation  of  the  law  of  Moses.  It  is  first  men- 
tioned and  partly  defined  in  the  Book  of  Exodus  (xxix.  28)  ; 
it  is  more  fully  defined  in  Leviticus  (iii.  and  vii.) ;  and  in 
Deuteronomy  an  addition  is  made  to  the  portion  given  the 
priest.  The  flesh  was  partly  eaten  by  the  offerer  and  his 
friends,  and  partly  by  the  officiating  priest,  while  only  the 
fat,  the  kidneys  and  the  gall  were  offered  to  God  on  the  altar. 
If  the  people  of  Israel  actually  offered  peace-offerings  on  the 
two  occasions  just  mentioned,  then  the  law  of  Moses  had 
already  been  given,  and  many  who  participated  on  these  occa- 
sions had  personal  remembrance  of  the  fact^ 

The  only  way  to  evade  the  force  of  this  evidence  is  the 

"Kuenen  says:  "The  Nazarite  vow  is  regulated  by  law  in  the 
Pentateuch.  But  the  practice  itself  is  much  older  than  this  law,  espe- 
cially the  Nazariteship  for  life,  of  which  we  have  the  first  example  in 
Samuel"  {Rel.  of  Israel,  I.  316).  The  first  of  these  assertions  can  be 
made  only  by  assuming  that  the  law  was  given  later  than  the  time 
of  Samuel;  the  second,  only  by  denying  the  account  of  Samsou;  and 
in  all  there  is  a  failure  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  vow.  A  his- 
tory of  the  religion  of  Israel  which  fails  to  account  for  this  remark- 
able feature  of  it  shows  by  the  very  fact  that  it  is  not  derived  from 
authentic  sources.    The  real  sources  it  rejects. 


The  book  of  dBvti^ronomy.  233 

one  which  is  the  constant  resort  of  the  critics ;  that  is,  to  demy 
the  facts  in  the  case^  The  account  in  Judges  is  ascribed  to 
"the  post-exilic  editor  or  author."  As  this  imaginary  person- 
age lived  after  the  Babylonian  exile,  he  had  no  means  of  know- 
ing what  occurred  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  and  consequently 
he  made  up  his  stories  out  of  unfooinded  oral  traditions.  Thus 
again  "historical  criticism"  makes  out  its  case  by  the  denial 
of  history.  Prof.  G.  F.  Moore,  in  the  International  Critical 
Commentary  on  Judges,  says,  "In  the  whole  description  of 
the  war  there  is  hardly  a  seaiiblance  of  reality"  (p.  405),  and 
again,  "It  is  not  history;  it  is  not  legend,  but  the  theocratic 
ideal  of  a  scribe  who  had  never  handled  a  more  dangerous 
weapon  than  an  imaginative  pen"  (431).^-^ 

4.  Micah's  Levite  Priest.  We  read  in  the  seventeenth 
chapter  of  Judges  that  there  was  a  man  in  the  hill  country 
of  Ephraim  whose  name  was  Micah.  Micah  was  a  thief.  He 
stole  eleven  hundred  pieces  of  silver  from  his  mother.  If  they 
were  shekels,  the  whole  amount  was  about  $600.  The  old 
woman,  no  better  than  she  ought  to  be,  pronounced  a  curse 
on  the  thief;  and  after  this  Micah  acknowledged  that  he  had 
the  money.  He  seems  to  have  been  so  scared  by  the  cairse  that 
he  made  confession  and  restored  the  stolen  property.  Then  the 
old  woman  dedicated  two  hundred  of  the  pieces  to  be  'made  into 
two  silver  images  to  be  worshiped  as  gods.     The  thief,  with 

"  For  the  purpose  of  discrediting  the  account  of  this  war.  Driver 
asserts:  "The  figures  are  incredibly  large:  Deborah  (v.  8)  places  the 
•  umber  of  warriors  in  entire  Israel  at  not  more  than  40,000"  (Int., 
168).  He  is  aiming  to  follow  Wellhausen,  but  he  runs  ahead  of  him; 
for  Wellhausen  puts  it  this  way:  "The  Israelites  were  strangely  help- 
less; it  was  as  if  neither  shield  nor  spear  could  be  found  among  thei." 
40,000  fighting  men."  But  both  of  these  scholars  inexcusably  pervert 
the  meaning  of  Deborah's  remark.  She  does  not  say  or  intimate  that 
Israel  had  only  40,000  fighting  men;  but  she  simply  raises  the  ques- 
tion whether  there  was  a  shield  or  spear  among  40,000  in  Israel.  Her 
words  are: 

"They  chose  new  gods: 

Then  was  war  in  the  gates: 

Was  there  a  shield  or  a  spear  seen 

Among  forty  thousand  in  Israel?" 

One  shield  or  spear  to  every  40,000  is  her  obvious  meaning,  and 
she  has  no  thought  of  giving  the  whole  number  of  warriors. 


234  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

an  inconsistency  that  is  not  wittout  its  parallel  even  in  some 
so-called  Christian  lands,  built  a  house  for  his  gods,  added 
some  teraphim,  or  wooden  image®,  consecrated  one  of  his  sons 
as  a  priest,  and  made  him  an  ephod  after  the  st_yle  of  a  high 
priest.  The  author  of  Judges  apologizes  for  the  toleration  of 
such  thievery  and  idolatry,  by  adding  tlie  remark  that  "there 
was  no  king  in  Israel  in  those  days:  every  man  did  that  which 
was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  Perhaps,  if  theire  had  been  a  king, 
Micah  would  not  have  been  punished  for  stealing  from  his 
own  mother,  and  if  the  king  had  been  such  as  Jeroboam,  who 
set  up  the  golden  calf  at  Bethel,  the  sin  of  idolatry  would  have 
been  ovea'looked.  The  greatest  folly  in  the  whole  affair  is  that 
it  was  Jehovah,  who  had  forbidden  the  use  of  images,  whom  the 
thief  was  proposing  to  worship.  But  in  this  he  was  no  greater 
fool  than  Jeroboam  and  all  of  his  successors  on  the  throne. 

In  the  course  of  time  a,  yonng  Levite  visited  Micah's  house. 
He  was  a  descendant  of  Moses  (xviii.  30)  ;  but  he  was  a  tramp; 
for  when  Micah  asked  him  whence  he  came,  he  answered,  "I 
attn  a  Levite  of  Bethlehem- judah,  and  I  go  to  sojourn  where 
I  may  find  a  place."  Micah  offers  him  the  very  place'  he  was 
hunting  for,  by  saying,  "Dwell  with  me,  and  be  unto  me  a 
father  and  a  priest,  and  I  will  give  thee  ten  piecesi  of  silver, 
by  the  year,  and  a  suit  of  apparel,  ajid  thy  victuals."  Like 
a  fool  and  the  lazy  vagrant  that  he  was,  the  Levite  accepted 
the  offer;  and  then  Micah,  like  another  fool,  said,  "Now  I 
know  that  Jehovah  will  do  me  good,  seeing  I  have  a  Levite  for 
my  priest."  The  Levite  aftei-ward  turned  out  to  be  a  greater 
rascal  than  Micah ;  for  at  the  request  of  six  hundred  unscrupu- 
lous Danites  who  passed  that  way,  he  pretended  to  give  an 
answer  from  Jehovah  as  to  the  success  of  the  marauding  expe- 
dition on  which  they  had  embarked,  and  then,  at  their  sugges- 
tion, he  stole  his  master's  gods  and  went  away  to  be  a  priest 
for  this  new  set  of  outlaws. 

This  story  is  told  by  the  author  of  Judges  for  the  evident 
purpose  of  showing  the  recklessness  and  daring  of  some  hypo- 
crites in  those  lawless  days ;  but  it  is  valuable  in  showing  the 
pre-existence  of  the  very  law  which  Micah,  the  Levite  and  the 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  235 

Danites  were  all  trampling  under  their  feet.  How  could 
Micah  have  known  anything  about  the  ephod,  eixcept  froon 
the  Levitical  law  in  which  this  robe  of  the  priest  is  de- 
scribed ?  And  ho^v  could  he  have  thought  that  a  Levite, 
renegade  as  he  was,  could  be  more  acceptable  to  Jehovah  as  a 
priest  than  his  own.  son,  except  by  having  learned  from  the 
same  law  that  the  Levites  were  next  in  official  rank  to  the 
real  priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron  ?  These  questions  can  not  be 
answered  by  our  modern  scientific  critics  without  again  deny- 
ing the  facts  of  history.  Driver,  it  is  true,  does  not  go  this 
far;  he  says  that  "chapters  xvii.  and  xviii.  introduce  to  us  an 
archaic  state  of  Israelitish  life;"  but  whether  the  account  is 
true  or  not,  he  does  not  affirm.  He  also  most  strangely  says 
that  no  "disapproval  of  what  Micah  had  instituted  appears  to 
be  entertained"  (Int.j  168) — as  if  an  author,  in  giving  an 
account  of  a  transaction  involving  theft,  idolatry  and  treach- 
ery, must  be  careful  to  express  his  disapproval  of  such  rascality 
to  free  himself  from  the  suspicion  of  approving  it.  Professor 
Moore  (Com.  on  Judges,  in  loco)  cites  the  name  of  a  long  list 
of  rationalistic  critics  who  hold  that  the  ephod  made  of  gold 
by  Gideon  (Judg.  viii.  27)  was  an  image,  with  the  apparent 
purpose  of  intimating,  though  he  does  not  affirm  it,  that 
Micah's  was  also  an  image;  but  the  absurdity  of  this  is  suffi- 
ciently apparent  from  the  fact  that  both  Samuel  in  his  child- 
hood, and  David,  when  dancing  before  the  ark,  ivore  ephods 
(I.  Sam.  ii.  18 ;  II.  Sam.  vi.  14)  and  from  the  fact  that 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  the  wo'rd  elsewhere 
means  a  priestly  garment.  True,  Gideon's  was  made  of  the 
gold  presented  to  him  out  of  the  spoil  of  the  Midianites;  but 
it  was  just  as  easy  to  make  a  garment  by  weaving  threads  of 
gold,  as  to  make  an  image  of  gold  by  melting  and  molding  it; 
and  the  fonner  would  require  less  of  the  precious  metal  in 
proportion  to  the  size  of  the  article  made.  It  was  as  easy,  too, 
to  worship  the  garment  as  the  image.  This  is  but  a  blind  and 
staggering  effort  to  get  rid  of  the  fact  that  the  Levitical  law, 
which  prescribed  the  ephod  as  the  distinguishing  garment  of 


236  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  high  priest  was  already  in  existence  and  well  known  in  the 
days  of  Micah. 

As  to  the  Levite,  Professor  Bennett.,  in  Polychrome  Judges 
(in  loco),  echoes  the  voice  of  many  critics  when  he  says: 

Levite  must  here  denote  his  calling,  not  his  extraction;  he  was  a 
professional  priest,  though  of  the  clan  of  Judah,  just  as  the  Ephraimite 
Samuel  was  brought  up  as  a  priest  at  Shiloh.  The  relation  of  the 
Levite  priests  to  the  old  tribe  of  Levi  is  obscure. 

It  must  be;  and  why?  No  reason  is  given,  but  the  real 
one  is  on  the  surface.  The  word  "Levite"  must  mean  the 
man's  profession;  for  if  it  means  that  he  belonged  to  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  then  the  critical  theory  about  the  Levites  and 
their  appointed  service  breaks  down.  And  how  profo'und  the 
remark  that  "the  relation  of  the  Levite  priests  to  the  old  tribe 
of  Levi  is  obscure"  !  Why  not  say  the  same  about  the  relation 
of  the  Benjamites  to  the  old  tribe  of  Benjamin,  of  the 
Ephraimites  to  the  old  tribe  of  Ephraim  ?  Does  it  not  appear 
as  if  these  .scholars  bade  farewell  to  candor  when  they  embarked 
upon  the  sea  of  critical  conjecture  and  discovery? 

§7.     In  the  Books  of  Samuel. 

In  answering  the  charge  of  Robertson  Smith  that  the  ritual 
observed  at  Shiloh  proves  the  non-existence  at  the  time  of  the 
Levitical  ritual,  we  have  already  exhibited  much  of  its  bear- 
ing in  the  opposite  direction;  we  now  consider  its  bearing  in 
this  direction  more  fully.  While  it  is  unquestionable,  as  we 
have  seen  before,  that  under  the  management  of  Hophni  and 
Phinehas  both  the  moral  law  and  the  ritual  law  were  very 
grossly  violated,  we  find,  upon  careful  examination  of  the 
facts,  indubitable  evidences  that  the  latter  was  the  law  under 
which  they  lived.     We  specify: 

1.  The  Structure  in  and  before  Which  this  Service  was 
Conducted.  It  is  styled  "the  house  of  Jehovah"  (i.  7;  ii.  15, 
24)  ;  the  "temple  of  Jehovah"  (i.  9;  iii.  3)  ;  and  "the  tent  of 
meeting"  (ii.  22).  The  last  is  the  current  title  of  the  strucr 
ture  otherwise  called  the  tabernacle,  in  the  book  of  Moses. 
The  first,  "house  of  Jehovah,"  is  first  used  in  Ex.  xxiii.  19, 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  237 

before  the  structure  was  erected  according  to  Exodus.  It  is 
found  in  the  command,  ^'The  first  of  the  firstfruits  of  thy 
ground  thou  shalt  bring  into  the  house  of  Jehovah  thy  God." 
As  no  fruits  of  the  ground  weire  gathered  during  the  wilder- 
ness wanderings,  this  precept,  of  course,  had  reference  to  the 
future,  and  to  whatever  structure  might  be  known  as  the  house 
of  God  when  fruits  of  the  ground  should  be  produced.  Until 
four  hundred  and  eighty  years  after  the  Exodus,  tliat  is,  until 
Solomon's  temple  was  built,  the  house  of  Jehovah,  to  which 
these  firstfruits  were  brought  was  none  other  than  the  tent 
of  meeting.  The  same  precept  is  repeated  verbatim  in  Ex. 
xxxiv.  26,  after  Moses  had  received  directions  about  the  con- 
struction of  the  tent  of  meeting.  Then  Moses  knew  what  the 
"house  of  Jehovah"  was  to  be,  and  necessarily  understood  it 
to  be  the  house  to  which  the  firstfruits  must  be  brought.  Later 
still,  and  after  the  tent  of  meeting  had  been  in  existence  and 
use  for  nearly  forty  years,  Moses  said:  "Thou  shalt  not  bring 
the  hire  of  a  whore,  or  the  wages  of  a  dog,  into  the  house  of 
Jehovah  thy  God  for  any  vow."  From  these  three  passages, 
if  they  speak  tbe  truth,  it  is  placed  beyond  doubt  that  the  tent 
of  meeting  built  by  Moses  was  known  to  liiim  by  the  title,  "house 
of  Jehovah."  This  title  it  bears  in  I.  Samuel.  The  title, 
"temple  of  God,"  is  therefore  the  only  new  one  here  found, 
and  the  nature  of  the  term  is  such  that  it  may  be  applied 
properly  to  any  structure  in  which  God  is  habitually  worshiped. 
The  structure',  then,  in  which  Hophni  and  Phinehas  served  is 
identified  by  its  names  with  the  one  which  Moses  built,  and 
which  Joshua  first  set  up  at  Shiloh,  where  our  text  finds  it. 
It  had  remained  here  for  more  than  three  hundred  years,  with 
the  probable  exception  of  a  temporary  removal  to  Bethel  in  the 
days  of  Phinehas,  the  grandson  of  Aaron  (Judg.  xx.  26-28). 
2.  The  Contents  of  the  Structure.  There  is  no  formal 
description  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  or  its  contents,  in  our  tesxt, 
and  consequently  all  that  we  learn  about  it  is  from  allusions 
of  the  most  incidental  character.  This  prevents  fullness  of 
information,  and  at  the  same  time  it  is  a  guarantee  against 


238  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  suspicion  of  any  false  or  'misleading  representation  by  the 
writer.  In  mentioning  tlie  time  and  the  place  of  God's  call 
to  the  child  Samuel,  it  is  said  that  "the  lamp  of  God  was  not 
yet  gone  out/'  and  that  Samuel  slept  "in  the  temple  of  Jehovah 
where  the  ark  of  God  was."  We  thus  learn  that  a  lamp,  which 
is  called  "the  lamp  of  God,"  was  kept  there  burning  at  least 
a  part  of  the  night;  and  this  can  be  no  other  than  the  golden 
lamp  incorrectly  styled  a  candlestick  in  the  Book  of  Exodus. 
The  law  required  that  it  be  kept  burning  all  the  night;  but 
it  is  not  surprising  that  under  the  lawless  administration  of 
Ilophni  and  Phinehas,  this  requirement  was  neglected.  The 
ark  of  God  is  identified  with  the  ome  made  by  Mo'Ses,  not 
only  by  its  name,  but  by  the  circumstance  that  in  describing 
its  removal  to  the  field  of  battle  by  these  two  wicked  priests, 
the  authoT  says,  "The  jDCople  sent  to  Sliiloh,  and  brought  from 
thence  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Jehovah  of  hosts,  who  sitteth 
between  the  cherubim" — the  last  clause  having  reference  to 
the  two  golden  cherubim  that  stood,  one  oin  each  end  of  the 
mercy-seat,  and  overshadowed  it  with  their  wings.  God  had 
promised,  "I  will  meet  with  thee,  and  commune  with  thee 
from  above  the  mercy-seat,  from  between  the  two  cherubim 
which  are  upon  the  ark  of  the  testimony"  (Ex.  xxv.  22). 

The  table  of  shewbread  was  also  in  this  temj^le;  for  after 
its  removal  from  Shiloh  to  Nob  in  the  reign  of  Saul,  David, 
in  his  flight  from  Saul,  called  on  the  priest  Ahimelech  for 
bread,  and  the  latter  gave  him  "holy  bread ;  for  there  was  no 
bread  there  but  the  shewbread,  that  was  taken  from  before 
Jeliovah,  to  put  hot  bread  in  the  day  when  it  was  taken  away" 
(xxi.  3-6).  Jesus  afterward  noted  the  fact  that  this  act  was 
unlawful,  the  law  providing  that  this  bread  should  be  eaten 
by  the  priests  alone;  but  still  it  shows  that  the  bread  was  kept 
there  as  the  law  required,  and  was  renewed  by  hot  bread  at 
proper  inteTvals. 

We  now  see  that  three  out  of  the  four  sacred  vessels  which, 
according  to  the  Levitical  law,  were  to  be  kept  in  the  taber- 
nacle, were  kept  in  the  house  at  Shiloh,  and  it  is  fair  to  pre*- 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  239 

smiie  that  the  only  reason  why  the  fourth,  the  altar  of  incense, 
is  not  mentioned,  is,  that  in  the  accounts  of  the  priests  and 
visitors  to  the  structure  at  this  period,  there  was  no  occasio'n 
for  alluding  to  it.  We  may  assert,  then,  with  confidence,  that 
while  in  some  respects  the  law  of  Moses,  if  in  existence,  was 
seriously  violated  by  the  priests  then  in  charge,  the  tent  of 
meeting  erected  by  Moses  for  the  purpose  of  putting  the  Leviti- 
eal  ritual  into  effect,  together  with  all  of  the  sacred  furniture 
provided  for  various  acts  of  that  ritual,  was  standing  at  Shiloh 
in  the  days  of  Samuel.  But  how  could  this  have  been  if  the 
law  w^hich  originated  this  service  had  not  been  enacted  before 
this  time  ?  Let  us  see  what  answer  the  critics  give  to  this 
question.  We  have  seen  a  part  of  their  answer  in  a  preceding 
section  (p.  144),  and  have  found  that  it  consists  in  irrelevant 
assertions  and  unfounded  assumptions.  We  now  seek  their 
final  and  decisive  answer. 

3.  The  Existence  of  the  Tabernacle  Denied.  In  the  first 
place,  they  deny  that  the  tabernacle  so  elaborately  described 
in  the  Book  of  Exodus,  and  so  often  mentioned  in  later  his- 
tory, ever  had  a  real  existence.      Wellhausen  says: 

The  tabernacle  rests  on  a  historical  fiction.  .  .  .  Hebrew  tradition, 
even  from  the  time  of  the  judges  and  the  first  kings,  for  which  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  was,  strictly  speaking,  intended,  knows  nothing  at 
all  about  it  (Proh,  39). 

Robertson  Smith  says  of  it: 

It  is,  in  short,  not  a  fact,  but  an  idea,  an  imaginary  picture  of 
such  a  tabernacle  as  might  serve  as  a  pattern  for  the  service  of  the 
second  temple  (0.  T.,  410). 

Andrew  Harper,  more  modest,  takes  the  same  ground  when 

he  says : 

There  is  not  a  hint  in  the  legislation  of  Deuteronomy  that  its 
author  knew  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  sole  right  as  a  place  of  sacrifice. 
P'rom  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  code  he  never  mentions  the 
tabernacle  or  the  sacrifices  there  (258). 

Such  is  the  dictum  of  the  critics,  from  the  most  radical  to 
the  most  conservative.  After  this  sweeping  denial,  it  is  an 
easy  step  to  declare,  as  they  do,  that  T.  Sam.  ii.  22,  in  which 
the  structure  at  Shiloh  is  called  "the  tent  of  meeting,"  is  an 


240  THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF 

interpolation  {Proh,  41,  43;  Encyc.  Brit,  article,  "Taber- 
nacle"). There  ig  not  the  slightest  suspicion  of  this  verse 
on  grounds  of  textual  criticism,  but  it  stands  as  an  insuperable 
barrier  against  the  dictum  that  there  never  was  a  tabernacle, 
and,  therefore,  it  must  be  erased  from  the  text. 

I  can  not  do  better  with  reference  tO'  this  wholesale  slash- 
ing of  the  Scripture  records,  than  to  quote  what  Mr.  W.  L. 
Baxter  says  of  it  in  his  "Reply  to  Wellliausen" : 

Wellhausen's  treatment  of  this  branch  of  the  subject  is  so  astound- 
ing, in  its  utterly  unsupported  assumptions,  and  in  its  wholesale  impu- 
tations of  falsehood  to  the  writers  of  Scripture,  that  we  always  feel  a 
difficulty  in  realizing  that  he  can  expect  his  views  to  be  soberly 
accepted  by  any  Bible  student.  Nothing  in  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  more  indubitably,  more  minutely  and  more  solemnly  asserted 
and  described  than  the  erection  of  the  Mosaic  tabernacle.  Next  to  the 
delivery  of  the  Decalogue,  it  is  the  main  outstanding  event  in  Israel's 
first  year  of  a  national  emancipation.  No  less  than  thirteen  entire 
chapters  (Ex.  xxv.-xxxi.  and  xxxv.-xl.)  are  devoted  to  a  most  circum- 
stantial account  of  its  contrivance  and  execution.  Its  precious  metals, 
its  cunning  workers,  its  hearty  contributors,  its  every  division  and 
curtain  and  vessel,  its  time  in  making,  and  its  splendid  inauguration, 
are  all  there  most  explicitly  detailed.  ...  If  anything  seems  imbedded 
immovably  in  the  history  of  Jewish  worship,  it  is  the  giving  of  the 
divine  pattern  for  the  sanctuary,  and  the  elaborate  execution  thereof 
in  the  wilderness  "as  the  Lord  commanded  Moses"   (22). 

The  enormity  of  such  dealings  with  sacred  records  is  not 
at  all  alleviated  when  we  come  to  consider  the  excuses  which 
some  who  feel  the  need  of  an  excuse,  have  given  for  it. 
Robertson  Smith,  for  example,  mentions  the  "gold  and  silver, 
the  rich  hangings  of  rai"©  purple,  the  incense  and  unguents  of 
costly  spices,"  and  demands: 

How  came  these  things  to  be  found  in  the  wilderness?  It  is 
absurd  to  say,  as  is  commonly  said,  that  the  tabernacle  was  furnished 
from  the  spoil  of  the  Egyptians  (Ex.  xi.  2;  xii.  35),  and  that  the  serfs 
who  left  Egypt  carrying  on  their  shoulders  a  wretched  provision  of 
dough  tied  up  in  their  cloaks  (Ex.  xii.  34),  were  at  the  same  time 
laden  with  all  the  wealth  of  Asia  and  Africa,  including  such  strange 
furniture  for  a  long  journey  on  foot  as  store  of  purple  yarn  and  the 
like  (0.  T.,  410). 

Here  he  accepts  a  part  of  the  text  of  Exodus  only  to  misr 
represent  it,  and  utterly  ignores  another  part  of  which  he  could 
not  have  been  ignorant.  The  text  does  not  say  that  they  left 
Egypt  "carrying  on  their  shoulders  a  wretched  provision  of 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  241 

dough."  They  would  have  been  fools  indeed  to  start  on  a 
desert  journey  of  two  hundred  miles,  by  the  most  direct  course, 
with  no  better  supply  of  food.  They  actually  supplied  thean- 
selves,  before  getting  entirely  out  oi  Egypt,  with  food  sufficient 
to  last  thean  a  whole  month;  for  they  star.ied  on  the  fifteentli 
of  the  first  m.nth  (xii.  3,  18)  and  it  was  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  second  month  that  they  ran  out  of  bread  (xvi.  1-3).  The 
dough  with  which  they  started  was  intended  only  for  the  start., 
and  the  statement  of  xii.  39,  that  "they  could  not  tarr)^,  neither 
had  they  prepared  for  themselves  any  victuals,"  has  reference 
only  to  the  departure  from  their  homes  for  the  rendezvous  at 
Eameses.  On  the  other  hand,  the  positive  statements  that 
"according  to  the  word  of  Moses"  they  "asked  of  the  Egyptians 
jewels  of  gold  and  raiment,"  that  "the  Egyptians  let  them  have 
what  they  asked,"  and  that  "they  spoiled  the  Egyptians,"  are 
just  as  credible  as  the  statement  that  they  took  unleavened 
dough  on  their  shoulders  boiimd  up  with  their  clothing.  And 
while  they  were  asking  what  they  would  of  the  Egyptians, 
they  unquestionably  gathered  up  a  'month's  supply  of  provi- 
sions, thinking  that  they  would  make  their  journey  tO'  Canaan 
before  it  would  be  exhausted.  It  was  because  they  were  led 
by  an  unexpected  route  that  their  supply  was  exhausted  in  the 
wilderness.  As  to  the  quantity  of  gold  and  jewels  with  which 
they  supplied  themselves,  if  every  man  and  woman  secured 
a  single  dollar's  worth,  the  aimount  -vTOuId  have  been  about 
$1,200,000.  As  to  purple  yarns,  and  costly  goods  for  wearing 
a^^parel,  the  women  of  Israel,  unless  they  differed  very  much 
from  modern  women,  were  more  eager  for  these  than  for  gold 
and  silver;  and  especially  so  from  the  fact  that  Egypt  was 
richly  supplied  with  articles  of  this  kind  which  money  could 
not  buy  in  any  other  land.  To  give  Smith's  reason,  then,  for 
denying  that  the  tabernacle  was  built  in  the  wilderness,  is 
worse  than  to  deny  that  it  was,  and  give  no  reason. 

For  the  assertion  quoted  above,  that  the  passage  (I.  Sam. 
ii.  22)  in  which  the  "tent  of  meeting"  is  named,  is  an  inter- 
lX)lation,  there  is  no  evidence  whatever,  and  it  is  clear  that 


242  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  assertion  is  made  to  get  rid  of  evidence  against  the  theory. 
But  even  if  this  assertion  could  be  maintained,  there  would 
still  remain  unchallenged  the  passages  in  which  it  is  perfectly 
manifest,  as  we  have  said  above,  that  the  structure  before  which 
Hophni  and  Phinehas  officiated,  and  which  is  called  elsewhere 
the  temple  of  Jehovah,  and  the  house  of  Jehovah,  stood  at 
Shiloh,  and  that  it  is  identified  with  the  structure  that  Moses 
is  said  to  have  built  in  the  wilderness,  by  the  fact  that  it  con- 
tained the  same  sacred  vessels,  the  ark,  the  ,2;olden  lamp,  and 
the  table  of  shewbread.  All  the  evasions  and  bold  denials  of 
the  critics  on  this  subject  fail  as  completely  to  rid  them  of 
the  binding  force  of  evidence  against  their  theory  as  did  the 
writings  of  the  fabled  Laocoon  to  rid  him  and  his  sons  of  the 
entwining  ser|Dents. 

4.  The  Ritual  at  the  House  in  Shiloh.  In  a  former  section 
(p.  7)  we  have  already  discussed  this  topic  in  answer  to  the 
objections  of  the  adverse  critics ;  we  now  consider  the  positive 
evidence  which  it  furnishes  for  the  pre-existence  of  the  law. 
We  find  here,  as  respects  the  interior  of  the  house,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  law  there  was  a  regular  trimming  and  lighting  of 
the  lamp,  and  the  renewing  of  the  shewbread,  as  seen  in  the 
preceding  section.  We  find  also  an  altar  for  sacrifices,  and 
at  least  three  priests — a  high  priest  and  two  common  priests — 
who  ofiiciate  at  this  altar.  Wliile  the  latter  have  been  so  cor- 
rupt in  their  practices  as  to  disgust  the  mass  of  the  jieople, 
and  cause  them  to  ''abhor  the  offering  of  Jehovah,"  we  find 
one  faithful  Israelite  still  coming  annually  with  his  family 
to  offer,  and  his  sacrifice  is  the  peace-offering  which  in  its 
peculiar  features  is  a  creation  of  the  Levitical  law.  We  find 
the  extortionate  priests  demanding  of  the  offerers  a  larger 
share  of  the  victims  than  they  are  entitled  to,  thus  implying 
that  there  was  a  prescribed  portion  allotted  to  them,  yet  they 
still  burn  on  the  altar  the  fat,  which  is  the  only  part  of  the 
peace-offering  that  according  to  the  Levitical  law  was  to  be 
burned.  We  find  also  that  Hannah  was  acquainted  with  the 
iNTaririte  vow,  to  the  restrictions  of  which  she  binds  her  unborn 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  243 

SOU,  and  with  the  priestly  ephod,  in  imitation  of  which  she 
dresses  her  boy  when  she  leaves  him  with  the  priest ;  and  both 
of  these  are  ci*eations  of  the  Levitical  law. 

Besides  the  argument  of  Robertson  Smith  which  we  have 
quoted  and  discussed  in  a  former  section  (p.  144),  one  more 
is  advanced  for  the  purpose  of  setting  this  evidence  aside: 

The  arrangements  agree  with  those  of  the  second  temple  in  various 
particulars  in  which  Solomon's  temple  was  different;  e.  g.,  there  is  one 
golden  candlestick,  and  not  ten   (0.  T.,  410;   note  1). 

But  all  the  descriptions  of  the  tabernacle  which  we  have 
in  the  Scriptures,  represent  it  as  having  but  one;  so  if  this 
is  the  tabernacle  built  by  Moses,  it  must  have  but  one;  and 
if  the  account  of  it  is  imaginary,  it  should  still  have  but  one. 
Only  in  case  the  account  was  imaginary,  and  was  taken  from 
the  pattern  of  Solomon's  temple,  could  there  have  been  ten. 
The  second  temple  copied  in  this  respect  the  original  taber- 
nacle, and  not  the  temple  of  Solomon.  This.,  perhaps,  was  not 
because  Zerubbabel  and  his  colaborers  had  any  objection  to  the 
ten  lamps  used  by  Solomon,  but  because  they  brought  wdth 
them  from  Babylon  only  the  one  wdiich  had  been  made  in  the 
wilderness  and  kept  in  both  the  tabernacle  and  tJie  temple. 
The  other  nine  may  have  been  left  in  the  heatlien  temple  at 
Babylon  because  the  Jews  were  content  with  the  one  w^hich 
Moses  made  and  would  not  ask  Cyrus  for  the  others.  Some 
new  critic  much  arise,  and  make  an  advance  on  his  predeces- 
sors, before  the  efforts  of  the  latter  shall  be  able  to  shake  the 
evidence  for  the  Mosaic  law  and  the  Mosaic  tabcTnacle,  which 
is  furnished  by  the  tent  of  meeting  at  Shiloli,  and  the  service 
which  was  so  imperfectly  rendered  there  by  the  sons  of  Eli. 

There  are  some  other  evidences  for  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the 
law  to  be  found  in  the  Books  of  Samuel,  less  conclusive  than 
those  which  we  have  presented.  The  reader  who  des-ires  to 
exhaust  the  subject  will  do  well  to  study  the  essay  in  Lex 
Mosaica  by  J.  J.  Lias,  under  the  heading,  "The  Times  of  Sam- 
uel and  Saul."  All  of  the  es.says  in  that  work  are  worthy  of 
most  careful  study. 


244  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

§8.     In  I.  AND  II.  Kings.     . 

1.  Soloimoii's  Temple.  The  temple  erected  by  Solomon  was 
expressly  intended  to  take  the  place  of  the  movable  tent  of  meetr 
ing,  or  tabernacle,  which  had  previously  been  the  center  of 
Israel's  worship.  This  is  made  clear  by  considering  in  con- 
nection what  was  said  on  the  subject  to  David,  and  what  was 
said  by  Solomon  when  he  was  about  to  build.  When  David 
was  dwelling  in  his  own  house,  and  God  had  given  him  rest 
from  all  his  enemies  round  about,  he  conceived  the  thought  of 
building  a  temple,  and  said  to  the  prophet  Xathan,  "See  now, 
I  dwell  in  a  hooise  of  cedar,  but  the  ark  of  God  dwelleth  within 
curtains."  l^athan,  understanding  his  meaning,  answered,  "Go, 
do  all  that  is  in  thy  heart ;  for  Jehovah  is  with  thee."  !N'athan 
went  his  way,  but  returned  the  same  night  with  a  message  from 
God,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  said :  "I  have  not  dwelt 
in  a  house  since  I  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,  even  to  this  day,  but  have  walked  in  a  tent  and  in  a 
tabernacle.  .  .  .  When  tby  days  be  fulfilled,  and  thou  shalt 
sleep  with  thy  fathers,  I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee:,  which 
shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels^  and  I  will  establish  thy  king- 
dom. He  shall  build  a  house  for  my  name,  and  I  will  establish 
the  throne  of  his  kingdom  forever"  (II.  Sam.  vii.  1-13). 
When  Solomon  was  preparing  to  commence  the  building,  he 
said  in  a  message  to  Hiram  of  Tyre:  "Thou  knowest  how  that 
David  my  father  could  not  build  a  house  for  the  name  of  Jeho- 
vah his  God  for  the  wars  which  were  about  him  on  every  side, 
until  Jehovah  put  them  under  the  soles  of  his  feet.  But  now 
Jehovah  my  God  hatb  given  me  rest  on  every  side;  there  is 
neither  adversary,  nor  evil  occurrent.  And,  behold,  I  purpose 
to  build  a  house  for  the  name  of  Jehovah  my  God,  as  Jehovah 
spake  unto  David  my  father,  saying.  Thy  son,  whom  I  will  set 
upon  thy  throne  in  thy  room,  he  shall  build  the  house  for  my 
name"  (I.  Kings  v.  3-5).  This  shows  that  there  was  a  per- 
fect understanding  on  the  part  of  David,  the  prophet  !N"athan, 
and  Solomon,  that  this  house  was  to  supersede  the  movable 
tabernacle  as  the  house  for  Jebovah's  name.      This  understand- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  245 

ing  is  further  emphasized  by  the  fact  that  as  soon  as  the  temple 
was  completed,  and  in  the  process  of  dedication,  "the  ark  of 
Jehovah,  and  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  all  the  holy  vessels  that 
were  in  the  tent,"  were  brought  up  into  the  temple.,  and  the 
brazen  altar  was  placed  in  front  of  the  temple,  as  it  had  stood 
in  front  of  the  tabernacle  (I.  Kings  viii.  1-4,  64).  This  was 
the  end  of  a  service  which  had  continued  for  480  years  (vi.  1). 
That  which  thus  appears  from  formal  statements,  is  made 
equally  clear  from  a  consideration  of  the  dimensions,  the  form 
and  the  contents  of  the  temple,  all  of  which  were  modeled  after 
those  of  the  tabernacle.  Its  length  and  width  were  just  double 
those  of  the  tabernacle,  and  its  height,  thirty  cubits,  was  just 
double  that  of  the  tabernacle  if  the  latter  is  measured,  not  to 
the  top  of  its  walls,  but  to  its  extreme  height,  the  top  of  its 
ridge  pole.  (See  Mr.  Ferguson's  draught  of  the  tabernacle 
in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary.)  The  interior  was  divided  into 
two  apartments,  as  was  the  tabernacle,  the  holy  and  the  most 
holy — the  latter  accessible  only  through  the  former.  The 
inner  face  of  the  walls  of  both  was  covered  with  gold.  The 
oracle  in  each  was  occupied  by  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  the 
holy  place  by  an  altar  of  incense,  a  golden  lamp,  and  a  golden 
table  for  the  shewbread. 

In  front  stood  the  altar  of  burnt  offerings,  and  the  great 
brazen  vessel  called  the  sea  occupied  the  place  of  the  laver 
between  the  altar  and  the  door  of  the  temple.  The  only  mate- 
rial differences  in  all  these  particulars  were  such  as  grew  out 
of  the  gi-eater  magnificence  of  the  temple  and  its  intended 
greater  durability.  For  the  latter  purpose  its  walls  were  of 
stone  instead  of  wood,  and  both  of  its  apartments  were  closed 
with  wooden  doors  covered  with  gold,  in  place  of  embroidered 
curtains.  For  greater  magnificence,  it  was  supplied  with  ten 
golden  lamps  instead  of  one,  a  table  and  an  incense  altar  of 
solid  gold,  and,  in  the  oracle,  gilded  cherubim  of  gigantic  pro- 
portions overshadwving  the  two  much  smaller  which  overshad- 
owed the  mercy-seat.  IN"©  man  can  fail  to  see  the  intended 
modeling  of  the  one  structure  after  the  other.  The  destructive 
critics  see  it  as  plainly  as  others  do ;  but  in  order  to  save  their 


U6  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

theory,  they  have  fallen  into  the  absurd  assumption,  as  we  have 
stated  before,  that  the  tabernacle  never  had  an  existence,  but 
that  the  many  chapters  in  Exodus  describing  it  were  spun  out 
of  the  imagination  of  some  priests  living  in  the  days  of  Ezra, 
making  of  it  a  work  of  the  imagination  as  idle  and  useless  as 
the  tales  of  the  Arabian  Nights,  and  as  dry  reading  as  any  book 
on  skulls  and  bones. 

2.  The  Service  at  the  Temple.  As  the  temple  and  its  con- 
tents presuppose  the  tabernacle  after  which  it  was  modeled, 
so  the  service  rendered  to  God  in  and  before  the  temple  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  the  Levitical  law  for  the  execution  of 
which  it  was  evidently  intended.  Why  was  the  ark,  with  its 
meiTcy-seat  and  the  overshadowing  cherubim,  placed  in  the 
oracle  but  for  the  very  purpose  declared  in  the  Levitical  law, 
that  it  might  symbolize  the  presence  of  God  among  his  people  ? 
^(Ex.  XXV.  22).  Why  the  table  in  the  holy  place,  except  tO'  keep 
thereon  the  twelve  loaves  of  bread,  to  be  changed  on  every  sab- 
bath as  required  by  the  same  law  ?  (xxv.  30).  Why  the  lamp^ 
stands,  except  to  keep  a  symbolic  light  shining  in  the  temple  as 
the  Levitical  law  required?  (xxv.  37;  xxvii.  20;  xxx.  7,  8). 
And  why  the  altar  of  incense,  except  that  the  burning  of  incense 
morning  and  evening,  which  is  prescribed  as  a  part  of  the  duty 
of  the  priests,  may  be  done  becomingly?  (xxx.  7-9).  Why  the 
vessel  of  water  called  the  sea  immediately  in  front  of  the  tem- 
ple, but  for  the  washing  of  the  hands  and  feet  of  the  priests, 
ere  they  approach  the  altar  or  enter  the  holy  place,  as  com- 
manded in  the  law?  (Ex.  xxx.  17-21).  A  post-office  building 
of  the  present  day,  with  its  money-order  department,  its  reg- 
istered-letter department,  its  boxes  for  receiving  and  delivering 
mail,  its  distributing  clerks,  its  mail-pouches,  its  stamps  and 
its  envelopes,  no  more  presupposes  the  |>ostal  laws  of  the  Amer- 
ican Government,  than  Solomon's  temple  presupposes  the  old 
tabernacle  and  the  Levitical  legislation.  Without  these  it 
would  be  as  complete  an  enigma  as  the  great  Sphinx,  or  the 
Labyrinth  of  ancient  Eg}^t.  It  would  be  a  monument  to  Solo- 
mon's folly  and  extravagance,  instead  of  a  token  of  divine  love 
and  favor  to  God's  chosen  people. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  Ut 

3.  The  Exclusiveness  of  the  Temple  Service.  We  have 
said  ill  a  former  section  that  during  the  reign  of  Solomon, 
after  the  erection  of  the  temple,  there  is  no  trace  of  Jehovah 
•worship  at  any  other  place.  The  "high  places"  are  not  once 
mentioned  except  in  connection  with  the  heathen  altars  erected 
by  Solomon  in  his  old  age  for  his  heathen  wives  (xi.  7). 
It  can  not,  then,  bo  denied  that  during  this  period  the 
restriction  of  worship  to  one  sanctuary,  which  is  empha- 
sized in  the  Book  of  Denteronoany,  was  practically  in  force, 
and  that  it  met  with  imdisputed  acceptance  by  the  peo- 
ple. This  proves  what  all  of  our  critics  deny,  that  the 
Deuteronomic  law  was  already  known,  and  that  its  observ- 
ance was  practically  universal.  Proof  of  the  same  is  foimd 
in  the  fact  that  as  soon  as  Jeroboam  was  settled  on  the 
throne  of  the  ten  seceding  tribes,  he  issued  a  decree  forbidding 
his  subjects  to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  worship.  He  recognized  the 
unitizing  effect  of  worshiping  at  a  single  sanctuary,  and  feared 
that  a  continuance  of  that  powerful  influence  would  lead  to  a 
reunion  of  Israel  and  his  own  dethronement  and  death.  For 
this  reason  he  established  two  sanctuaries  in  his  ovm  dominion, 
and  made  this  worship  distinct  by  the  use  of  a  golden  calf  as 
a  symbol  of  Jehovah.  He  also,  at  the  same  time,  and  for  the 
same  purpose,  appointed  an  annual  festival  in  imitation  of  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  but  to  be  celebrated  one  month  later  (xii. 
26-29).  If  it  had  been  thought  at  this  time  that  wo^rship  at 
any  high  place  which  any  man  might  select  would  be  accepti- 
able  to  Jehovah,  the  king  could  have  had  no  reason  for  restrictr 
ing  the  w^orship  to  these  two  sanctuaries.  It  was  not  until  the 
minds  of  the  people  were  further  corrupted  that  they  began  to 
set  up  altars  "on  every  high  hill  and  under  every  green  tree." 

Having  established  these  two  places  for  sacrifice,  Jeroboam 
must  needs  have  a  priesthood  to  conduct  the  service  at  them, 
and  it  is  said,  to  his  further  reproach,  that  "he  made  priests 
from  among  the  people  who  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi"  (xii. 
51).  This  points  out  a.  second  departure  from  the  Levitical 
law,  and  shows  that  the  priesthood  hitherto  recognized  was  the 
one  authorized  by  that  law.      For  the  accommodation  of  these 


24^  THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF 

illegitimate  priests  lie  built  houses  at  the  two  sanctuaries  which 
are  called  ''houses  of  tlie  high  places"  (ih.). 

When  Jeroboam  was  about  to  burn  incense  on  his  altar  at 
Bethel,  for  the  first  time  apparently,  a  man  of  God  from  Judah 
drew  near  and  denounced  the  altar  in  words  which  still  furthcT 
demonstrate  the  previous  existence  of  the  Levitical  law.  He 
said:  "A  child  shall  be  born  in  the  house  of  David,  Josiah  by 
name;  and  upon  thee  shall  he  sacrifice  the  priests  of  the  high 
places  that  burn  incense  upon  thee,  and  men's  bones  shall  they 
burn  ujx)n  thee"  (xii.  33;  xiii.  2).  How  could  it  have  been 
known  at  this  time  that  burning  men's  bones  on  an  altar  would 
defile  it,  except  by  the  provision  of  the  Levitical  law  that  touch- 
ing a  bone  of  a  dead  (man  was  defiling?  (I^um.  xix.  16). 

4.  The  Toleration  of  the  High  Places.  The  kings  of 
Judah,  from  Jeroboam  to  Hezekiah,  are  censured  by  the  author 
of  the  Book  of  Kings  for  not  taking  away  the  high  places.  How 
could  this  censure  be  justly  administered  if  no  law  had  yet  been 
given  restricting  the  sacrifice  to  a  single  altar,  and  that  altar 
the  one  in  Jerusalem?  The  answer  of  our  critics  is,  that  the 
author  of  Kings  lived  after  the  discovery  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
that  in  his  zeal  for  the  enforceanent  of  the  Deuteronomic  law 
he  threw  back  his  own  sentiments  into  the  preceding  history. 
But  if  he  did  this,  his  censure  was  manifestly  unjust,  seeing 
that  no  man  can  be  rightly  censured  ior  not  obeying  a  law 
not  yet  in  existence.  It  was  not  only  unjust,  but  it  was  men- 
dacious; for  if  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  had  the  origin  which 
critics  ascribe  to  it,  this  author  kne^v  the  fact,  and  he  was  mak- 
ing false  pretenses  when  he  assmned  by  these  censures  that  it 
liad  existed  earlier.  Thus  again  and  again  the  positions  and 
arguments  of  these  critics  bring  the  authors  of  the  Biblical 
books  into  the  reproach  of  being  guilty  of  fraud  upon  fraud. 
Not  many  men  will  or  can  believe  this;  and  to  avoid  believing 
it  they  'must  cast  aside  the  critical  theories  as  both  false  and 
libelous. 

It  should  be  observed  here,  as  Stanley  Leathes  argues  in 
Lex  Mosaica  (437),  that  the  condemnation  of  high  places  in 
Kings  wa.9  derived  from  their  condemnation  by  name  in  Lev. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  249 

xxvi.  30,  and  not  from  what  is  said  in  Deut^erooomy,  seeing  that 
in  the  Latter  book  they  are  not  mentioned.  But  if  tlie  author 
had  both  of  these  books,  he  had  two  reasons  for  censuring  tlie 
kings  who  tolerated  them:  first,  that  they  were  condemned  by 
name  in  the  fonner  book,  and  condemned  in  the  latter  because 
they  were  places  of  w^orship  apart  from  the  central  sanctuary. 
But  if,  as  the  critics  affirm,  the  Book  of  Leviticus  had  not  been 
written  when  the  Book  of  Kings  was,  he  could  not  have  been 
influenced  at  all  by  the  latter,  and,  as  we  have  seen  above,  he 
could  not,  on  the  critical  hj'potliesis,  have  been  honestly  influ- 
enced by  Deuteronomy.  But  he  must  have  been  influenced  by 
one  or  botli  of  these  books;  and  if  either  w^as  of  earlier  date 
than  the  reigns  of  Judah's  kings,  both  were,  and  both  must  have 
come,  as  they  claim  to  have  come,  from  Moses. 

5.  Hezekiah's  Attack  on  the  High  Places.  Hezekiah  was 
the  first  king  of  Judah,  according  to  the  Book  of  Kings,  to 
make  an  earnest  effort  to  break  up  the  worship  on  high  places. 
It  is  said  of  him:  "He  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes 
of  Jehovali,  according  to  all  tJiat  David  his  father  had  done. 
He  removed  the  high  places,  and  brake  the  pillars,  and  cut 
down  the  Asherah:  and  he  brake  in  pieces  the  brazen  serpent 
that  Moses  had  made ;  for  unto  those  days  the  children  of  Israel 
did  burn  incense  to  it;  and  he  called  it  Nehushtan.  He 
trusted  in  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel;  so  that  after  him  there 
was  none  like  him  among  all  tlie  kings  of  Judah,  nor  among 
them  that  were  before  him.  For  he  clave  to  Jehovah,  he 
departed  not  from  following  him,  but  kept  his  commandments, 
which  Jehovah  comimanded  Moses"  (xviii.  3-6).  Here,  among 
the  things  which  made  Hezekiah  the  best  of  kings,  it  is  said 
that  he  removed  the  high  places.  He  did  this,  and  all  the  other 
good  acts  of  his  reign,  because  he  "trusted  in  Jehovah,"  and 
"kept  his  commandments  which  he  commanded  Moses."  If 
this  is  true,  there  w^as  some  command  of  God  by  Moses  which 
condemned  the  high  places  as  -well  as  the  "pillars,"  tlie  Asherah, 
and  the  burning  of  incense  to  the  brazen  sei^ent  But  what 
commandment  condemned  the  high  places  ?  As  we  have  said 
above,   there   are  only  two:  the  one  in   Deuteronomy  which 


250  THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF 

restricted  all  sacrifice  to  the  central  sanctuary,  and  the  one,  a 
threat,  ratlier  than  a  commandment,  in  Leviticus.,  in  which  God, 
speaking  of  the  punishment  which  he  will  bring  upon  Israel  in 
case  O'f  ajxtstasy,  sa,js:  ''I  will  destroy  your  high  places,  and 
cut  down  your  sun-images"  (xxvi.  30).  As  sure,  then,  as  this 
statement  of  the  author  of  Kings  is  true,  on©  or  both  of  these 
conmiands  were  already  known  to  Israel  and  the  critical  theory 
of  their  late  origin  is  falsified. 

There  is  further  evidence  that  Hezekiah  was  moved  by  the 
law  of  Deuteronomy  in  suppressing  the  high  places,  found  in 
the  argnment  of  Rabshakeh  when  urging  the  sun-ender  of  Jeru- 
salem to  Sennacherib:  "If  ye  say  to  me.  We  trust  in  Jehovah 
our  God:  is  not  that  he,  whose  high  places  and  whose  altars 
Hezekiah  hath  taken  away,  and  hath  said  to  Judah  and  Jeni- 
salem,  Ye  shall  worship  before  this  altar  in  Jerusalem  ?"  (xviii. 
22).  He  knew  that  Hezekiah  had  taken  away  tlie  high  places 
and  altars,  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  the  worship  to  Jeru- 
salem, and,  supposing  from  his  heathen  education  that  tliis 
would  displease  Jehovah,  he  argued  the  folly  of  trusting  to  him 
for  deliverance.  That  Rabshakeh  was  well  informed  as  to  the 
facts  in  the  case  there  can  be  no  doubt;  for  the  invading  army 
had  then  been  in  the  land  long  enough  to  have  taken  all  the 
cities  of  Judah  except.  Jerusalem,  and  he  had  conversed  with 
Jewish  captives  in  abundance  concerning  the  affairs  of  Judah. 
His  only  mistake  was  in  supposing  that  the  altars  destroyed 
were  legitimate  places  of  worship,  and  that  Jehovah  must  there- 
fore be  displeased  with  their  destruction. 

The  effort  made  by  the  destructive  critics  to  evade  the  force 
of  this  evidence  is  vigorously  set  forth  by  Mr.  Baxter  in  the 
following  lines: 

In  this  case,  Wellhausen  invents  a  forger  in  the  time  of  the  exile, 
and  then  lays  on  his  innocent  shoulders  all  the  statements  in  the  Books 
of  Kings  that  threaten  his  discovery  with  death.  He  calmly  assures  us 
that  it  is  only  "the  Exilian  redaction  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  which 
reckons  the  cultus  outside  Jerusalem  as  heretical"  (p.  15).  Who  this 
infamous  redactor  was,  what  may  have  been  his  name  or  his  residence 
or  his  surroundings  or  his  experiences,  must  remain  utterly  unknown: 
Wellhausen  simply  and  absolutely  summons  that  unblushing  man  up 
from  the  vasty  deep  of  his  own  imagination,  and  then  makes  him  the 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  251 

instrument  of  foisting  a  twenty-fold  lie  into  the  records  of  Scripture. 
.  .  .  Has  he  a  copy  in  Germany  of  the  Books  of  Kings  as  they  existed 
before  the  "Exilian  redactor"  operated  on  them?  If  so,  he  should  pub- 
lish it  (Sane,  and  Sac,  153  f.). 

Driver  ignores  Wellhau&en's  redactor,  and  ascribes  to  the 
compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings  that  which  Wellhausen  ascribes 
to  the  redactor.      He  says: 

Deuteronomy  is  the  standard  by  which  the  compiler  judges  both 
men  and  actions;  and  the  history,  from  the  beginning  of  Solomon's 
reign,  is  presented  not  in  purely  objective  form  (as,  e.  g.,  in  II.  Sam. 
ix.  20),  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Deuteronomic  code.  .  .  .  Obe- 
dience to  the  Deuteronomic  law  is  the  qualification  for  an  approving 
verdict;  deviation  from  it  is  the  source  of  ill  success  and  the  sure  pre- 
lude to  condemnation  (Int.,  199). 

Doubtless  this  last  sentence  is  true;  and  it  is  true  that  Deu- 
teronomy is  the  standard  by  which  men  and  actions  are  judged ; 
and  why  should  it  not  be  if  it  was  written  by  Moses  ?  But  if 
it  was  not  written  by  Moses,  why  should  the  compiler  of  Kings 
have  made  it  his  standard  ?  He  could  have  done  so  only  in  the 
way  which  Driver  describes,  by  presenting  the  history  "not  in 
a  purely  objective  form ;"  that  is,  not  as  actually  history,  but 
as  history  distorted  to  suit  "the  point  of  view  of  the  Deute- 
ronomic code."  In  this  lies  the  fraudulent  purpose  with  which 
this  historian,  in  common  with  the  others,  is  directly  or  indi- 
rectly charged.  Once  more  historical  criticism  denies  history 
in  order  to  make  room  for  a  theory. 

6.  The  Testimony  Given  to  Joash.  When  Jehoiada  the 
priest,  who  had  saved  the  life  of  the  infant  Joash  from  Atha- 
liah,  brought  him  forth  in  the  temple  to  make  him  king,  Ave 
are  told  that  "he  put  the  crown  upon  him,  and  gave  him  the 
testimony"  (11.  Kings  xi.  12).  The  article  here  called  "the 
testimony"  can  be  no  other  than  "the  law  of  the  kingdom,"  of 
which  it  is  said  in  Deuteronomy:  "It  shall  be,  when  he  sitteth 
upon  the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy 
of  this  law  in  a  book,  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  priests 
the  Levites :  and  it  shall  be  with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein 
all  the  days  of  his  life:  that  he  may  learn  to  fear  Jehovah  his 
God,  to  keep  all  the  words  of  this  law  and  these  statutes,  to 
do  them''  (xvii.  18,  19).     As  this  law  was  to  be  copied  "out  of 


^52  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OP 

that  which  was  before  the  priests,"  it  did  not,  of  course,  con- 
tain all  that  was  in  that  book ;  and  as  it  was  to  govern  the  king 
rather  than  the  priests  or  the  people,  it  included  only  such  por- 
tions as  related,  to  the  king's  personal  and  official  duties.  It 
was  not,  therefore,  a  very  long  document.  As  Joash  was  too 
young,  as  yet,  to  order  the  making  of  this  copy,  or  even  to  know 
that  it  had  to  be  made,  Jehoiada  had  prepared  it  in  advance, 
and  gave  it  to  him  when  the  crown  was  placed  on  his  head.  In 
the  margin  of  R.  V.  the  clause  is  rendered,  ''put  upon  him  the 
crown  and  the  testimony ;"  and  some  critic  has  argued  that  as 
Joash  was  a  child  only  six  years  old,  a  manuscript  of  the  whole 
Pentatetich  was  too  heavy  a  load  for  him  to  carry.  No  serious 
man,  of  course,  could  present  this  as  a  serious  argument,  see- 
ing that  the  law  to  b©  given  to  the  king  was  one  copied  out 
from  the  whole  law,  and  it  may  have  been  a  small  manuscript 
roll.  It  was  certainly  not  too  large  for  a  seven-year-old  boy  to 
hold  in  his  hand  or  on  his  arm.  It  was  doubtless  the  same  in 
content  with  the  book  written  by  Samuel  when  he  anointed 
Saul :  "Samuel  told  the  people  the  manner  of  the  kingdom,  and 
wrote  it  in  a  book,  and  laid  it  up  before  Jehovah"  (I.  Sam.  x. 
25).  Here  is  proof,  in  the  two  instances  combined,  that  this 
law  of  the  kingdom,  as  it  is  now  styled,  which  the  critics  say 
was  composed  in  tlie  reign  of  Manasseh  and  was  suggested  by 
the  reign  of  Solomon,  was  actually  complied  with  at  the  corona- 
tion of  Joash  more  than  two  hundred  years  earlier,  and  that 
it  was  observed  in  the  case  of  King  Saul  eighty  years  before 
the  reign  of  Solomon. 

Y.  Sparing  the  Children  of  Murderers.  The  reign  of  Joash 
was  ended  by  his  assassination  at  the  hands  of  two  of  his  offi- 
cers (II.  Kings  xii.  20,  21).  As  soon  as  his  son  Amaziah  was 
established  on  the  throne,  we  are  told  that  "he  slew  his  serv- 
ants who  had  slain  the  king  his  father :  but  the  children  of  the 
murderers  he  put  not  to  death :  according  to  that  which  is  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  Jehovah  commanded, 
saying,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children, 
nor  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the  fathers,  but  eveiry  man 


THE   BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  253 

shall  die  for  his  own  sins*'  (xiv.  5,  6).  Now,  this  law  is  found 
only  in  Deuteronomy  (Deut.  iv.  16)  ;  but  this  compliance  with 
it  occurred  two  centuries  before  the  hyjK>thetical  date  of  this 
book.  Moreover,  the  author  of  Kings,  and,  if  he  tells  the  truth, 
King  Amaziah  himself,  recognized  Deuteronomy  as  "the  book 
of  the  law  of  Moses." 

Here  we  close  our  presentation  of  the  evidence  found  in  the 
Book  of  Kings  for  the  early,  and  consequently  the  Mosaic, 
authorship  of  Deuteronomy ;  for  we  have  reached  the  period  in 
which  it  is  affirmed  by  the  most  radical  critics  that  the  book 
was  in  the  hands  of  King  Josiah.  We  have  not  aimed  to 
exhaust  the  evidence;  for  much  of  the  same  character  can  be 
produced,  and  has  been,  from  other  passages ;  but  we  have  pre- 
sented that  on  which  the  controversy  depends,  and  it  seems  abun- 
dantly sufficient  to  show  that  the  principal  actors  in  the  histor- 
ical scenes  which  are  portrayed  in  these  books  were  distinctly 
cognizant  of  the  existence  of  the  law  of  Moses,  both  the  Levit- 
ical  and  Deuteronomic  law,  and  that  it  was  without  question 
ascribed  by  them  to  Moses. 

§10.  The  Books  of  the  Early  Prophets. 

1.  Amos.  The  message  with  which  the  prophet  Amos  was 
charged,  was  a  terrific  denunciation  of  the  immoralities  then 
prevalent  in  Israel,  Judali  and  the  surrounding  peoples.  As 
we  have  seen  in  reviewing  the  arguments  of  the  adverse  critics, 
he  also  very  severely  denounced  the  sacrifices  and  offerings 
which  Israel  presented  at  the  altars  of  Bethel,  Gilgal,  Dan  and 
Beer-sheba,  under  the  hypocritical  pretense  that  these  covered 
the  multitude  of  the  people's  sins.  But  further  than  this  it 
could  hardly  be  expected  that  such  a  message  would  deal  with 
questions  of  ritual.  Yet  the  book  is  not  without  positive  evi- 
dence that  both  the  prophet,  and  the  people  of  the  ten  tribes 
whom  he  addressed,  were  acquainted  with  the  law  of  Moses 
which  the  latter  were  so  grossly  violating. 

(1)  In  the  opening  cry  of  the  prophet,  he  exclaims:  "Jeho- 
vah shall  roar  from  Zion,  and  utter-  his  voice  from  Jerusalem" 
(i.  2).     This  shows  that  Jerusalem  was  the  recognized  center  of 


254  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Jehovah's  presence  and  his  worship.  It  was  so  in  opposition 
to  the  centers  for  calf-worship  which  had  been  established  in 
Israel;  for,  wdth  direct  reference  to  this  crv,  the  prophet  says 
in  V.  4-6 :  "For  thus  saith  Jehovah  to  the  house  of  Israel,  Seek 
ve  me,  and  ye  shall  live:  but  seek  not  Beth-el,  nor  enter  into 
Gilgal,  and  pass  not  to  Beer-sheba:  for  Gilgal  shall  surely  go 
into  captivity,  and  Beth-el  shall  come  to  nought.  Seek  ye 
Johovah,  and  ye  shall  live;  lest  he  break  out  like  fire  in  the 
house  of  Joseph,  and  it  devour  and  there  be  none  to  quench  it' 
in  Beth-el."  Here  it  is  made  unmistakable  that  those  who 
would  seek  Jehovah  were  to  turn  away  from  Beth-el,  Gilgal 
and  Beer-sheba,  and  find  Jehovah  in  Jerusalem,  whence  his 
voice  was  roaring  through  the  mouth  of  Amos.  What  plainer 
evidence  could  one  w4sh  that  the  Deuteronomic  law  was,  con- 
trary to  the  voice  of  all  destructive  critics,  already  kno^vn,  and 
that  Jerusalem  was  the  only  appointed  place  where  Jehovah 
could  be  found  to  acoept  the  sacrifices  of  his  people?  This  was 
a  century  and  a  half  before  the  date  assigned  by  these  critics 
to  Deuteronomy. 

(2)  With  one  voice  these  critics  insist  that  "the  law''  in 
the  lips  of  the  early  prophets  never  'means  the  law  of  Moses, 
but  the  teaching  (Hebrew,  torah)  of  the  prophets.  Wellhausen 
says: 

By  the  law  of  Jehovah  which  the  people  of  Judah  have  despised, 
it  is  impossible  that  Amos  could  have  understood  anything  in  the 
remotest  degree  resembling  a  ritual  legislation   (Prol.,  56). 

The  passage  to  which  he  here  has  allusion  furnishes  a  com- 
plete test  of  the  truth  of  this  reckless  .assertion.  It  is  this: 
"For  three  transgressions  of  Judah,  yea,  for  four,  I  will  not 
turn  away  the  punishment  thereof;  because  they  have  rejected 
the  law  of  Jehovah,  and  have  not  kept  his  statutes,  and  their 
lies  have  caused  them  to  err,  after  the  which  their  fathers  did 
walk"  (ii.  4).  N"ow,  Amos  was  himself  the  first  of  the  writing 
prophets,  and  he  was  preceded  only  by  Elijah  and  Elisha,  who 
wrote  no  law,  gave  no  statutes,  and  who  spoke  to  Israel  and  not 
to  Judah.  Where,  then,  is  the  law  of  Jehovah  which  Judah  had 
rejectad,  the  statutes  of  Jcliovah  which  they  had  not  kept,  and 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  255 

which  their  fathers  had  dealt  with  in  the  same  way?  They 
vanish  into  thin  air  with  the  theory  which  wonld  thus  falsify 
the  meaning  of  words.  The  words  of  Amos  imply  of  necessity 
that  there  was  a  law  of  Jehovah,  statutes  of  Jehovah,  which  had 
preceded  the  prophets,  and  which  had  been  disregarded  by  the 
people  of  Judali  for  generations  past.  How  completely  blinded 
by  a  preconception  must  Wellhausen  have  been  not  to  have  seeiTi 
that  he  was  using  this  passage  to  teiach  the  opposite  of  what  it 
implies !  And  how  completely  he  has  pulled  the  wool  over  the 
eyes  of  such  men  as  Robertson  Smith,  Driver,  Cheyne,  and 
others,  that  they  should  not  have  seen  the  trap  into  which  he 
has  led  them.      But  ^'critical  views"  have  become  traditional. 

(3)  There  are  several  allusions  in  Amos  which  show  that 
he  was  acquainted  with  the  strictly  ritual  or  Levitical  law  as 
well  as  with  that  of  Deuteronomy.  He  shows  an  acquaintance 
with  the  sixth  chapter  of  Numbers  by  saying:  "I  raised  up  of 
your  sons  for  prophets,  and  of  your  young  men  for  I^azirites. 
.  ,  .  But  ye  gave  the  Nazirites  wine  to  drink"  (ii.  11,  12). 
The  word  "Nazirite"  is  not  found  in  any  writing  which  these 
critics  ascribe  to  a  date  earlier  than  Amos,  except  in  the  story 
of  Samson  (Judg.  xiii.  5,  7;  xvi.  17)  ;  and  in  this  story  there 
is  not  a  hint  that  it  was  wrong  for  a  ISTazirite  to  drink  -wine. 
Moreover,  this  story,  according  to  the  critics,  was  first  written 
about  the  time  of  Amos  by  J,  and  it  could  not  have  had  the 
force  of  a  law.  But  both  Amos  and  the  people  of  Israel  knew 
full  well  that  it  was  unlawful  for  a  Nazirito  to  drink  wine,  or 
for  another  to  give  him  wine  to  drink,  and  there  is  no  source 
from  which  they  could  have  obtained  such  information  except 
this  passage  in  !N^ timbers. 

He  shows  a  knowledge  of  Lev.  vii.  13,  by  saying  of  the 
worshipers  of  Bethel  and  Gilgal  that  they  "offer  [by  burning, 
margin]  a  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  of  that  which  is  leavened" 
(iv.  5).  What  could  Amos  or  these  worshipers  have  known 
about  any  connection  of  leavened  bread  with  the  thank-offering, 
had  not  the  Levitical  law  already  forbidden  the  burning  of 
leaven  upon  the  altar  (Lev.  ii.  11),  but  permitted  the  presen- 
tation of  leavened  bread  with  the  thank-offering  because  it  was 


256  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

given  to  the  priest  and  none  of  it  was  to  be  burned  ?  (Lev.  vii. 
9,  10).  The  passage  shows  that  with  all  their  abea*rations  from 
the  Levitical  law,  these  worshipers  were  acquainted  with  it; 
for  otherwise  they  could  not  be  rebuked  for  this  violation  of 
it.  Wellhausen  seeks  to  evade  tiie  force  of  this  evidence  by 
asserting  that  the  law  forbidding  the  burning  of  leaven  on  the 
altar  is  in  conflict  with  the  earlier  usage  which  permitted  it. 
But  what  he  styles  the  "earlier  usage,"  the  one  here  relied  on 
by  Amos,  is  the  very  one  which  condemns  the  offering  of  leaven 
by  fire.     The  effort  to  evade  the  evidence  confirms  it. 

Amos  and  his  conteanporaries  also  knew  the  Levitical  law 
which  required  every  burnt  offering  to  be  accompanied  with  a 
meal  offering  (ISTum.  xv.  1-12 ;  also  chapters  xxviii.  and  xxix.)  ; 
for  in  his  rebuke  of  their  unacceptable  service,  he  says  to  the 
people:  "Yea,  though  ye  offer  me  your  burnt  offerings  and  your 
meal-offerings,  I  will  not  accept  them"  (v.  22).  While  the 
burnt  offering,  if  we  may  believe  the  Bible,  both  Old  Testa- 
ment and  Kew,  is  as  old  as  the  time  of  Abel,  the  meal-offering 
had  its  origin  in  the  Levitical  law,  and  after  the  enactment  of 
the  law  it  was  an  invariable  accompaniment  of  the  burnt  offer- 
ing. This  enactment  preceded  the  time  of  Amos,  and  was  well 
known  to  the  apostate  tribes  of  the  northern  kingdom. 

2.  Hosea.  All  the  principal  evidences  that  this  prophet 
knew  the  law  of  Moses  have  been  presented  in  answering  the 
arguments  of  the  destructive  critics,  leaving  nothing  to  be  said 
in  this  connection.      (See  p.  175  ff.) 

3.  Isaiah.  While  the  critics  have  argued  from  certain  pas- 
sages that  Isaiah  knew  nothing  of  tlie  law  of  Moses,  they  have 
overlooked  or  ignored  certain  others  which  prove  the  opposite. 
We  now  call  attention  to  the  more  prominent  of  these: 

(1)  In  ii.  6-8  the  prophet  says:  "Thou  hast  forsaken  thy 
people  the  house  of  Jacob,  because  they  be  filled  with  customs 
from  the  east,  and  are  soothsayers  like  the  Philistines,  and  they 
strike  hands  with  the  children  of  strangers.  Their  land  also  is 
full  of  silver  and  gold,  neither  is  there  any  end  of  their  treas- 
ures ;  their  land  also  is  full  of  horses,  neither  is  there  any  end 


THE   BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  257 

of  their  chariots.  Their  land  also  is  full  of  idols ;  they  worship 
the  work  of  their  own  hands,  that  which  their  own  fingers  have 
made."  j^ow  here  soothsaying,  excessive  accumulations  of 
silver  and  gold,  and  the  multiplication  of  chariots  and  horses, 
are  classed  as  unlawful  things  in  company  with  idols.  But  how 
did  tJie  people  know  that  these  things  were  at  all  wrong  in  the 
sight  of  God,  and  especially  that  they  were  of  like  unlawful- 
ness with  idols,  unless  they  had  already  received  some  law  for- 
bidding them?  Could  they  have  learned  it  from  Solomon's 
example?  With  that  alone  before  them,  they  would  have 
argued  from  the  unexampled  wisdom  of  Solomon  that  all  these 
except  soothsaying  were  praisewortky.  There  is  not  a  sentence 
in  all  that  the  critics  admit  to  have  been  written  befoire  Isaiah's 
time  from  which  they  could  have  learned  it.  Only  on  the  sup- 
position that  they  had  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  can  this  knowl- 
edge be  accounted  for.  In  that  book  soothsaying,  while  not 
named,  is  prohibited  by  prohibiting  the  whole  category  of  occult 
arts  to  which  it  belongs ;  and  it  is  classified,  as  here,  with  idol- 
atry :  "There  shall  not  be  found  with  thee  any  one  tJiat  maketh 
his  son  or  his  daughter  to  pass  through  the  fire,  one  that  useth 
divination,  one  that  practiseth  augury,  or  an  enchanter,  or  a 
sorcerer,  or  a  charmer,  or  a  consulter  with  a  familiar  spirit,  or 
a  wizard,  or  a  necromancer.  For  whosoever  doeth  these  things 
is  an  abomination  to  Jehovah"  (xviii.  10-12).  In  the  same 
book  and  the  same  chapter,  as  is  well  known  to  the  critics,  the 
kings  of  Israel  are  forbidden  to  multiply  horses,  or  to  greatly 
multiply  silver  and  gold  (14-17).  The  people,  then,  were 
acquainted  with  this  book,  and  Isaiah  relied  upon  their  knowl- 
edge of  it  in  denouncing  these  practices  as  well-known  sins. 
Professor  Cheyne,  whose  eyes  are  sharp  to  discover  in  all  the 
Scriptures  anything  which  he  can  construe  in  favor  of  the 
critical  hypothesis,  though  he  comments  on  this  passage,  fails  to 
see  this  bearing  of  it. 

(2)  In  viii.  19,  20,  the  prophet  says:  "When  they  shall  say 
unto  you.  Seek  unto  them  that  have  familiar  spirits  and  unto  the 
wizards,  that  chirp  and  that  mutter:  should  not  a  people  seek 


§58  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

unto  their  God  ?  on  behalf  of  the  living  should  they  seek  unto 
the  dead  ?  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony !  If  they  speak 
not  according  to  this  word,  surely  there  is  no  morning  for  them." 
Here,  seeking  for  information  from  familiar  spirits  is  put  in 
contrast  with  seeking  it  from  God ;  and  when  men  are  advised 
to  resort  to  these  spirits,  the  prophet  cries,  in  opposition,  ''To 
tlie  law  and  to  the  testimony !"  and  he  declares  that  there  is  no 
morning,  but  perpetual  night,  to  those  who'  do  not  speak  "accord- 
ing to  this  word."  By  "this  word"  he  clearly  means  the  word 
of  "the  law  and  the  testimony."  In  the  word  "law"  we  have 
again  the  Hebrew  word  torah,  which  means,  as  the  critics  say, 
the  teaching  of  the  prophets  and  not  the  law  of  Moses.  But 
where  was  this  teaching  of  the  prophets  when  Isaiah  wrote? 
Amos  and  Hosea  had  taught,  but  not  a  woa'd  had  either  said 
about  familiar  spirits.  Only  in  Deuteronoimy  (xviii.  11),  and 
in  Leviticus  (xix.  31 ;  xx.  6,  27)  had  consulting  with  them  been 
forbidden,  and  therefore  to  these  and  the  other  law-books  must 
Isaiah  have  referred  as  the  "law  and  the  testimony."  They 
would  be  thus  seeking  unto  their  God ;  they  would  thus  be  seek- 
ing, "on  behalf  of  the  living,"  to  the  living  and  not  to  the  dead. 

Professor  Cheyne  identifies  "the  law  and  the  testimony" 
here  wath  Isaiah's  own  previous  teaching  of  which.,  at  verse  16, 
he  was  commanded :  "Bind  thou  up  the  admonition  and  seal  the 
timony  upon  my  disciples"  {Com.,  in  loco)  ;  but  in  this  pre- 
vious teaching  there  is  not  a  word  about  familiar  spirits,  and 
consequently  this  attempt  at  evasion  is  a  failura 

(3)  In  chap.  xxiv.  5,  6,  it  is  said:  "The  earth  is  polluted 
under  the  inhabitants  thereof;  because  they  have  transgressed 
the  laws,  changed  the  ordinance,  broken  the  everlasting  cove- 
nant." This  shows  that  laAvs  had  been  given  by  God,  one  or 
more  ordinances  had  been  appointed,  and  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant had  been  made.  What  laws,  ordinances  and  covenant  can 
these  be  ?  Professor  Cheyne  says  the  reference  is  to  the  cove- 
nant with  Noah.  But  no  covenant  was  made  with  N'oah  which 
Noah's  descendants  could  break.  That  covenant  was  simply  a 
promise  on  God's  part  that  "the  w^aters  shall  no  more  become  a 
flood  to  destroy  all  flesh"  (Gen.  ix.  16).      There  was  no  condi- 


THIJ    BOOK     Of    DEUTJ'JHONOMY.  259 

tion  attached  to  it  for  men  to  co'inply  with,  luul  men,  therefore, 
could  not  break  it.  The  relerence  is  to  a  covenant  which  men 
could  break,  and  which  men  had  broken.  It  was  not.  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision ;  ioT  that  had  not  been  brokeai.  The  onlj 
reference  which  the  words  and  the  facts  will  admit  is  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Israel  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt,  by  which, 
on  the  condition  of  their  keeping-  his  commandments  and  stat- 
utes which  he  would  give  them,  Go<l  promised  that  they  should 
be  a  peculiar  treasure  to  him  above  all  nations  (Ex.  xix.  3-8). 
This  covenant  Israel  had  broken  in  a  most  flagrant  manner,  and 
Judah  w^as  breaking  it  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  when  this  passage 
was  probably  written.  It  was  a  covenant,  too,  with  which  laws 
and  ordinances  were  connected ;  and  this  is  true  only  of  the 
covenant  made  at  Sinai.  It  is  true  that  the  chapter  of  which 
this  passage  forms  a  part,  appears  to  be  a  woe  pronounced  on 
the  whole  earth;  but  this  does  not  change  the  reference;  for 
although  this  covenant  was  made  formally  with  Israel  alone, 
the  principles  involved  in  it,  and  the  main  body  of  the  laws  con- 
nected with  it,  are  those  by  which  God  governs  and  holds 
accountable  to  himself  the  whole  world. 

(4)  In  two  passages  (xvii.  7,  8;  xxvii.  9)  Isaiah  sho'AVS 
knowledge  of  the  restricted  woTship  enjoined  in  Deuteronomy, 
and  enforced  by  Hezekiah.  In  the  former  he  says :  "In  that 
day  shall  a  man  look  unto  his  Maker,  and  his  eyes  shall  have 
respect  to  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  And  he  shall  not  look  to 
the  altars,  the  work  of  his  hands,  neither  shall  he  have  respect 
to  that  which  his  fingers  have  made,  either  the  Asherim,  or  the 
sun-images."  By  "the  altars,  the  work  of  his  hands,"  are  meant 
those  which  the  worshiper  had  made,  in  distinction  from  that 
which  Moses  had  made,  and  Avhich  stood-  in  the  temple-.  He 
was  to  look  neither  to  these  altars,  nor  to  the  Asherim,  nor  the 
sun-images  which  some  had  erected ;  that  is,  he  was  to  look 
neither  to  the  worship  of  idols,  nor  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
on  the  altars  which  he  had  made,  and  the  reference  must  be  to 
the  altars  on  the  high  places.  In  contrast  with  this  he  was  to 
look  to  his  Maker,  and  have  respect  to  the  holy  One  of  Israel ; 


^60  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

and  this  could  be  done  Ly  worsliij>ing  only  at  tlie  appoiuted 
sanctuary. 

In  the  latter  passage  the  purging  of  Israel's  iniquity,  or  the 
taking  away  her  sin,  is  conditioned  on  the  destruction  of  these 
altars,  and  of  all  idolatrous  images :  ^'Therefore  by  this  shall 
the  iniquity  of  Jacob  be  purged,  and  this  is  all  the  fruit  of 
taking  away  his  sin ;  when  he  maketh  all  the  stones  of  the  altar 
as  chalk  that  are  beaten  in  sunder,  so  that  the  Asherim  and  the 
sun-images  shall  rise  no  more." 

These  passages  clearly  show  that  the  worship  in  high  places, 
the  places  in  which  the  altars  referred  to  were  undoubtedly 
erected,  instead  of  being  considei'ed  legitimate,  as  tlie  critics 
contend,  im^til  the  reign  of  Josiali,  was  already  condemned  by 
tlie  prophet  while  they  were  being  suppressed  by  the  king. 
Ilezekiah  was  supported  in  the  suppression  of  them  not  only  by 
the  law  of  God,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  249),  but  by  the  contem- 
porary teaching  of  the  prophet. 

.Oheyne  evades  the  force  of  tiiis  evidence  by  representing 
xvii.  7,  8  as  a  gloss  by  a  late  editor  of  Isaiah,  and  by  ascribing 
xxvii.  9  to  his  fifth  Isaiah,  and  fixing  its  date  in  332  B.  C. 
(Polychrome  Isaiah,  in  loco).  But  this  is  falsified  by  the  his- 
torical fact  that  Israel  did  not  resort  to  unauthorized  altars, 
Asherim  and  sun-images  after  the  Babylonian  exile.  Here  his- 
tory corrects  the  historical  critic.  In  his  earlier  work  (Com- 
metitary  on  Isaiah)  he  shows  conscious  misgiving  on  this  point, 
by  saying: 

The  mention  of  the  symbols  of  Asherah  is  not  what  we  should 
expect  from  a  writer  living  during  the  Babylonian  exile.  The  phenom- 
enon is,  of  course,  not  decisive  of  the  critical  question  at  issue,  but 
ought  to  have  its  due  weight  (Com.,  xxvii.  9). 

But  if  it  is  not  what  we  should  expect  from  a  writer  of 
the  exile,  when  the  evil  practice  had  ceased,  much  less  is  it  what 
we  should  expect  from  a  writer  who  lived  two  hundred  years 
after  the  exile.  Evidently,  then,  he  should  have  given  the  bene- 
fit of  his  doubt  in  favor  of  Isaiah  himself  as  the  author,  instead 
of  ascribing  the  passage  to  his  imaginary  fifth  Isaiah. 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  261 

(5)  In  chap.  xxix.  13  IsaiaJi  shows  knowledge  of  a  law  of 
God  regulating  worship,  by  saying:  "And  the  Lord  said,  Foras- 
much as  this  jjeople  draw  near  unto  me,  and  wath  their  mouth 
and  with,  their  lips  do  honour  me,  but  ha,ve  removed  their  heart 
far  from  me,  and  tlieir  fear  of  me  is  a  commandment  of  men 
which  hath  been  taught  them:  therefore,  behold,  I  will  proceed 
to  do  a  marvellous  work  among  this  people,  even  a  marvellous 
work  and  a  w^onder."  To  the  sin  of  drawing  near  to  God 
according  to  a  "commandment  of  men,"  is  traced  the  further 
sin  of  drawing  near  with  the  mo'Uth  and  the  lips  w^hen  the  heart 
is  far  away.  But  the  former  sin  could  not  exist  without  a  law 
of  God  for  which  the  commandment  of  men  had  been  substi- 
tuted. There  was,  then,  a  law  of  God  by  which  to  draw  near 
to  him,  and  this  had  been  set  aside  by  the  people  that  they 
might  follow  some  commandment  of  men.  The  passage  is 
quoted  by  our  Lord  in  rebuking  those  in  his  day  who  forsook 
the  commandment  of  God  in  observing  the  tradition  of  the  elders 
(Matt.  XV.  1-9).  Cheyne  feels  the  force  of  this  evidence,  and 
evades  it  by  appending  to  the  words  "a  commandment  of  men," 
the  remark  "alluding  to  pre-canonical  collections  of  laws,  which, 
we  may  infer  from  Hos.  viii.  12 ;  Jer.  viii.  8,  were  current  in 
some  circles  in  the  time  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets"  (Com.,  in 
loco).  But  how  could  pre-canonical  commandments  be  thus 
condemned  before  the  canonical  laws  had  yet  been  given  ?  The 
fact  that  drawing  near  to  God  by  the  commandment  of  men  is 
condemned  at  all,  implies  of  necessity  that  the  commandment  of 
God  on  the  same  subject  had  been  already  given,  and  of  this 
no  successful  evasion  is  possible.  God  had  then  given  laws 
by  which  the  people  were  to  draw  near  to  hiim,  and,  like  the 
Pharisees  of  a  later  age,  the  people  had  accepted  in  place  of 
these  somei  commandments  of  men. 

(6)  In  exalting  the  power  of  God  and  his  knowledge,  the 
prophet  exclaims:  "Lebanon  is  not  sufficient  to  bum,  nor  the 
beasts  thereof  sufficient  for  a  burnt  offering"  (xl.  16).  He 
means  that  the  magnificent  cedar  groves  of  Lebanon  wooild  not 
furnish  enough  wood  to  burn  an  offering  worthy  of  Jehovah, 
nor  would  all  the  beasts  to  be  found  on  those  mountains  make 


262  THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF 

an  adequate  offering.      What  words  could  express  a  wanner 
approval  of  burnt  offerings  in  praise  of  Jehovah  ? 

(7)  In  rebuking  Israel  for  th^e  blindness  and  deafness  which 
caused  them  to  be  led  captive,  he  says :  "It  pleased  Jehovah,  for 
his  righteousness'  sake,  to  magnify  the  law,  and  make  it  honour- 
able" (xlii.  21).  He  did  this  by  giving  them  to  their  enemies 
for  despising  his  law.  He  demands,  "Who  gave  Jacob  for  a 
spoil,  and  Israel  to  the  robbcTs  ?"  and  he  ansAvers,  "He  against 
whom  they  sinned,  in  whose  ways  they  would  not  wailk,  neither 
were  they  obedient  to  his  law"  (24).  The  law  of  God  and  dis- 
obedience to  it  are  here  regarded  precisely  as  in  the  account 
given  by  the  author  of  Kings,  of  the  causes  which  led  to  Is- 
rael's captivity. 

(8)  Israel  is  again  rebuked  for  neglect  of  the  law  in  these 
tonus:  "Yet  thou  hast  not  called  upon  me,  O  Jacob;  but  thou 
hast  been  weary  of  me,  O  Israel.  Thou  hast  not  brought  me 
the  small  cattle  of  thy  burnt  offerings;  neither  hast  thou  hon- 
oured me  with  thy  saci'ifioes.  I  have  not  made  theei  to  serve 
with  offerings,  nor  wearied  tlieei  with  frankincense.  Thou  hast 
bought  me  no  sweet  cane  with  money,  neither  hast  thou  filled 
me  with  the  fat  of  thy  sacrifices:  but  thou  hast  made  me  to 
serve  with  thy  sins,  thou  hast  wearied  me  with  thine  iniquities" 
(xliii.  22-24).  The  contrast  presented  in  the  latter  part 
of  this  rebuke  adds  greatly  to  the  sting  of  it.  While  God's 
requirement  of  offerings  had  not  made  them  "to  seirve,"  that  is, 
as  slaves,  and  the  frankincense  which  he  had  required  had  not 
"wearied"  them  by  its  quantity  or  its  frequency,  they  have 
made  him  to  "serve"  with  their  sins,  and  wearied  him  with 
their  iniquities.  IN^eglect  of  offerings  of  animals  and  of  incense 
had  brought  their  calamities  upon  them ;  but  this  could  not 
have  been,  if,  as  the  critics  affirm,  the  Levitical  law  had  not 
yet  been  given. 

(9)  In  depicting  the  blessedness  of  Israel  at  some  future 
day,  beginning  with  the  exultant  strain,  "Arise,  shine;  for  thy 
light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  Jehovah  is  risen  upon  thee,"  the 
prophet,  says :  "All  the  flocks  of  Kedar  shall  be  gathered  to- 
gether unto  thee,  the  rams  of  Nehaioth  shall  minister  untO'  thee: 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  263 

they  shall  conie  with  acceptance  on  mine  altar,  and  I  will  glorify 
the  house  of  my  glory"  (Ix.  7).  Thus  the  glorification  of  God's 
house  was  to  reach  its  consummation  by  the  acceptable  offering 
of  flocks  and  rams  upon  his  altar.  jSTotioe,  that  the  single:  altar 
required  by  the  law  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  abundant  sacri- 
fices of  the  Levitical  law,  are  both  distinctly  recognized,  thus 
proving  that  both  were  already  known  and  held  in  honor 
by  Israel. 

(10)  Finally,  the  offering  of  sacrifices  by  men  who  have 
"chosen  their  own  ways,"  and  whose  souls  are  "delighting  in 
their  abominations,"  is  held  up  for  the  abhon-ence  of  the  people, 
as  in  the  last  chaptea*  of  the  book.  The  prophet  says:  "He  that 
killeth  an  O'X  is  as  he  that  slayeth  a  man ;  he  that  sacrificeth  a 
lamb,  as  he  that  breaketh  a  dog's  neck ;  he  that  offereith  an  obla- 
tion, as  he  that  offereith  swine's  blood;  he  that  bumeth  frank- 
incense, as  he  that  blesseth  an  idol :  yea,  they  have  chosen  their 
own  ways,  and  their  soul  delighteth  in  their  abominations" 
(Ixvi.  3). 

It  is  claimed  by  our  critics,  one  and  all,  that  the  last  four  of 
the  passages  just  cited  were  not  written  by  Isaiah.  The  more 
conservative  among  them  hold  that  the  last  twenty-seven  chap- 
ters of  Isaiah  were  written  by  an  unknown  prophet  who  lived 
in  the  last  ten  years  of  the  Babylonian  exile.  But  even  on 
this  hypothesis,  though  this  writer  would  have  known  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy,  he  would  not  have  known,  as  we  see  that  he 
certainly  did,  the  Levitical  law  of  sacrifices  which  was  writbeai 
later.  But  the  more  radical,  and  certainly  the  shrerwder  set, 
deny  some  of  these  chapters  to  even  the  "second  Isaiah,"  and, 
to  prevent  being  caught  in  the  trap  just  pointed  out,  they  claim 
that  portions  of  these  chapters  were  written  at  various  intervals 
down  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great,  A.  D.  332.  Thus, 
Cheyne  credits  only  chaptei's  xl.-xlviii.  to  the  "second  Isaiah," 
just  one-third  of  the  whole  numiber;  and  he  distributes  the 
others  between  third,  fourth  and  fifth  Isaiahs.  He  does  this 
in  order  to  prevent  the  real  Isaiah,  or  even  the  "second  Isa- 
iah," from  knowing  the  Levitical  law^,  a  knowledge  of  which 
by  them  would  shatter  the  critical  theory.     When  learned  and 


264  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

critical  scholars  are  tlius  coanpelled  to  run  their  theories  like 
chased  foxes  into  the  ground,  a  man  of  common  sense  wants 
no  better  evidence  that  the  theories  are  indefensible. 

4.  Jeremiah.  As  in  the  case  of  Hosea,  we  have  presented 
both  sides  of  the  evidence  from  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  while 
answering  the  arguments  of  the  critics.     (See  Part  First,  §8,  6). 

§10.     The  Testimony  of  Jesus. 

1.  The  Positions  of  the  Parties.  We  now  come  to  testimony 
which,  if  explicit  and  unambiguous,  should  settle  this  contro- 
versy finally  and  foretver.  But  at  the  threshold  we  encounter 
from  both  extremes  of  the  new  criticism  objections  to  the  intro- 
duction of  it.  Kuenen  expresses  the  objection  of  the  radical 
wing  in  words  so  striking  and  emphatic  that  they  have  been 
quoted  often  as  the  keynote  of  opposition  from  that  quarter. 
He  says : 

We  must  either  cast  aside  as  worthless  our  dearly  bought  scientific 
method,  or  must  forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  New 
Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the  Old  (Prophets  and 
Prophecy  in  Israel,  487). 

Shocking  as  this  statement  must  ever  be  to  a,  believer  in 
Christ,  it  presents  the  necessary  position  of  unbelievers ;  for  if 
Jesus  Ohrist  possessed  no  supernatural  intelligence,  he  was 
incapable  of  giving  competent  testimony  in  regard  tO'  the  author- 
ship of  Old  Testament  books.  As  a  witness  he  must  be  ruled 
out,  and  ruled  out  he  is,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  all  the  analyti- 
cal critics.  On  the  contrary,  to  all  believers  in  him  his  testi- 
mony settles  all  questions  on  which  hei  has  deigned  tO'  speak. 

Kuenen,  in  the  remark  just,  quoted,  betrays  the  unexpressed 
conviction  that  his  "dearly  bought  scientific  method"  must  be 
pronounced  worthless,  and  must  be  cast  aside  as  such,  if  the 
authority  of  the  New  Testament  is  acknowledged.  In  this  he 
proves  himself  more  candid  and  more  logical  than  are  many  of 
his  half-way  pupils  who  profess  faith  in  Christ  And  let  it 
not  slip  from  our  memory  that  the  most  radical  of  destructive 
critics  recognize  and  frankly  admit  an  irreconcilable  antagonism 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  265 

between  tJieir  theories  respecting  tlie  Old  Testament,  and  the 
statements  on  the  subject  in  the  Xew  Testament. 

On  the  otheir  hand,  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs  expresses  the  view 
of  the  "evangelical  critics,"  in  the  following  paragraph: 

Those  who  still  insist  upon  opposing  higher  criticism  with  tra- 
ditional views,  and  with  the  supposed  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  do  not  realize  the  perils  of  the  situation.  Are  they  ready 
to  risk  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  the  exist- 
ence of  the  church,  upon  their  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles?  Do  they  not  see  that  they  throw  up  a  wall  that  will 
prevent  any  critic,  who  is  an  unbeliever,  from  ever  becoming  a  believer 
in  Christ  and  the  Bible?  They  would  force  evangelical  critics  to  choose 
between  truth  and  scholarly  research  on  the  one  side,  and  Christ  and 
tradition  on  the  other  (Bib.  Study,  196). 

This  autJior  is  equally  opposed,  with  Kuenen  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  testimony  of  the  Xew  Testament  on  this  subject,  but 
on  opposite  grounds.  He  has  such  confidence  in  the  "dearly 
bought  scientific  method,"  that  the  thought  of  its  being  proved 
worthless  does  not  excite  his  fears,  but  he  sees  in  it  great  pea-il 
to  "the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
existence  of  the  church."  He  sees  in  it  the  likelihood  that  no 
critic  who  is  an  unbeliever  will  ever  become  a  believer,  a  change 
highly  improbable  under  any  circumstances;  and  he  sees  in  it 
the  dire  necessity  that  such  men  as  himself  shall  be  forced  to 
choose  between  the  new  criticism  and  Christ — a,  plain  intimar 
tion  that  they  would  choose  the  new  criticism. 

And  yet,  this  author,  in  another  place,  takes  the  highest 

ground  in  f  avoT  of  submitting  to  the  authority  of  Jesus  and  his 

apostles.    He  says: 

The  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  who  know  him  to  be  their 
divine  Saviour,  outweighs  all  other  authority  whatever.  A  Christian 
must  follow  his  teachings  in  all  things  as  the  guide  into  all  truth. 
The  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  in  involved  in  that  of  his  apostles 
{ib.,  186). 

Xothing  could  be  better,  or  better  said,  than  this.  "We 
should  cast  aside,  then,  all  fear  of  consequences,  and  investigate 
with  perfect  candor  the  sayings  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  on  this 
subject.  WhateV'Cr  our  conclusions  derived  from  the  study  of 
the  Old  Testament  may  be,  w^e  must  cast  them  aside  as  worth- 
less, as  Kuenen  says,  if  we  find  them  in  conflict  with  the  testi- 


266  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

luoaiy  of  tihe  New  Testaiiient ;  and  whatever  tliei  result  as  respects 
critics  wtho  are  nofw  unbelievers,  we  must  let  Christ  be  true  if  it 
makes  every  man  a  liar. 

In  order  that  our  investigation  of  this  most  important  ques- 
tion may  be  thorough,  taking  nothing  for  granted,  we  shall 
inquire  first,  Did  Jesus  know  the  facts  involved  in  the  Old  Tesr 
tament  criticism  ?  If  he  did  not,  then  any  affirmation  by  him 
on  the  subject  proves  nothing.  Second,  Did  he  affirm  anything 
on  this  subject  ?  If  he  both  knew  and  affirmed,  it  follows  that 
what  he  affirmed  must  be  received  with  implicit  faith  by  those 
who  believe  in  him.  Had  our  investigation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
snent,  which  we  have  just  now  concluded,  led  us  tO'  accept  the 
conclusions  of  the  adverse  critics,  a  contrary  affirmation  on  the 
part,  of  Jesus  would  be  sufficient  ground  for  reversing  the  deci- 
sion, supposing  that  we  had  been  misled  by  ingenious  sophistry  ; 
but  as  the  matter  stands,  tliis  new  testimony  is  not  really  needed 
except  for  the  purpose  of  finding  more  solid  ground  for  our 
final  convictions,  than  human  judgment  at  its  best  can  afford. 

2.  Did  Jesus  Know  ?  To  the  question,  Did  Jesus  know  who 
wrote  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  great  lights  of 
modem  criticism,  such  as  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen,  together  wdth 
all  the  lesser  lights  of  the  radical  school,  answer  with  an 
emphatic  "No."  Denying,  as  they  do,  his  miraculous  power, 
they  also  deny  his  miraculous  knowledge,  and  claim  that  he 
knew,  on  such  subjects,  only  what  he  learned  from  his  teachers. 
They  limit  the  knowledge  of  the  apostles  in  the  same  way.  As 
a  necessary  consequence,  the  testimony  of  Jesus  on  such  sub- 
jects, no  matter  how  explicit  and  positive  it  may  be,  has,  with 
them,  no  weight  whatever. 

When  believing  scholars  began  to  favor  the  Old  Testament 
criticism  of  these  unbelievers,  tliey  soon  perceived  that  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  would  have  tO'  be  reckoned 
with,  and  so  they  put  their  ingenuity  to  work  in  the  search  for 
some  method  of  evading  the  apparent  forcei  of  this  testimony. 
The  first  effort  in  this  direction  that  came  under  my  own  obser- 
vation was  an  essay  in  the  Expositor  for  July,  1891,  from  the 


THE    BOOK    OF    DElTERONOMY.  267 

pen  of  Dr.  Alfred  PlummeT,  under  the  heading,  "The  Advance 
of  Christ  in  Sophia."  Starting  frottn  tlie  statement  of  Luke, 
tliat  Jesus,  when  a  child,  "increased  in  stature  and  in  wisdom" 
(sophia  in  the  Greek),  h©  argued  that  this  increase  in  wisdom 
may  have  continued  throughout  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  that, 
consequently,  at  every  period  of  his  life,  even  to  the  last,  there 
may  have  been  some  things  which  he  did  not  yet  kno'W,  and 
among  tiiese  the  matters  involved  in  Old  Testament  criticism. 
Add  to  the  conclusion  thus  reached  the  fact  that,  according  to 
his  0"wii  statement,  he  did  not  know  the  day  or  the  hour  of  his 
own  second  coming,  and  there  reanains  but  a  short  step  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  may  have  been  as  yet  ignorant  of  the  author- 
ship of  the  so-called  book  of  Moees,  and  the  reality  of  the  facts 
recorded  in  it.  A  little  later,  Canon  Gore  introduced  us  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Kenosis,  as  it  is  called,  arguing  the  probability 
of  our  Lord's  ignorance  on  critical  subjects  from  the  statement 
of  Paul  tJiat  though  he  was  in  the  form  of  God,  and  thought 
it  not  a  prize  to  be  equal  with  God,  he  emptied  himself,  and 
took  th.e  form  of  a  servant  (Phil.  ii.  6-8).  This  emptying 
included  the  laying  aside  of  divine  knowledge,  so  that  he  did 
not  possess  the  latter  while  he  was  in  the  flesh.  By  this  inge- 
nious method  of  reasoning  these  gentlemen  thought  themselves 
justifiable  in  laying  aside  the  testimony  of  him  who  had  pi-e- 
viously  been  regarded  by  all  believers  as  the  most  important 
witness  who  could  testify  in  the  case.  This  they  do  "vei"y  rev- 
erently," and  not  with  the  irreverence  with  which  infiiiel  critics 
had  already  reached  the  same  result.  The  accepted  title  of 
this  process  is  "reverent  criticism."  Reverent  it  is  in  manner 
and  tone,  but  not  more  so  than  the  approach  of  Judas  in  the 
garden  to  kiss  his  Lord;  and  we  are  to  see  whether  it  is  less 
deceptive. 

I  suppose  that  there  is  no  intelligent  person  who  now  doubts 
that  the  knowledge  of  Jesus,  during  his  infancy  and  his  boy- 
hood, was  limited.  But,  after  he  received,  at  his  baptism,  the 
Holy  Spirit  without  measure  (John  iii.  34),  that  Spirit  which, 
in  the  words  of  Paul,  knoweth  all  things,  even  the  deep  things 


268  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

of  God  (I.  Cor.  ii.  10),  who  shall  dare  to  assign  any  limit 
to  his  knowledge  additional  to  that  which  he  has  himself 
assigned?  Who  but  himself  can  now,  or  could  then,  have 
knowledge  of  even  this  limitation  ?  He  often  displayed  mirac- 
ulous knowledge,  as  when  he  detected  the  unexpressed  thoughts 
of  men,  when  he  gave  directions  to  Peter  with  reference  to  the 
fish  which  he  would  catch  with  a  stater  in  its  'mouth,  and  when 
he  directed  him  and  John  about  preparing  the  paschal  supper. 
He  also  showed  a  conscious  knowledge  of  his  own  pre-existence 
when  he  said  to  the  Jews,  "Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to 
see  my  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad.  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am"  (John  viii.  56,  58)  ;  and  when  he  prayed  to  his 
Father,  "I  have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth :  I  have  finished  the 
work  that  thou  gaveet  me  to  do.  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify 
thou  me  with  thine  own  self  with  the  glory  that  I  had  with 
thee  before  the  world  was"  (John  xvii.  4,  5).  If  he  had 
miraculous  knowledge,  as  these  facts  demonstrate,  who  shall 
dare  to  set  a  limit  to  his  exercise  of  it?  Can  a  "reverent" 
critic  do  so? 

Our  Lord's  O'wn  statement  that  he  knew  not  the  day  or  the 
hour  of  his  second  coming  is  one  of  the  most,  astonishing  utter- 
ances that  ever  fell  from  his  lips.  Its  singularity  is  not  realized 
until  it  is  considered  in  its  connection  with  the  other  things 
belonging  to  his  second  coming,  which  he  did  know.  He  knew 
that  it  would  occur  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
afteir  Jerusalem  shall  cease  to  be  trodden  under  foot  by  the 
Gentiles;  he  knew  by  whom  he  will  be  accompanied — by  all 
the  angels  of  God ;  he  knew  what  men  will  be  doing  when  he 
comes — that  they  will  be  engaged  in  all  the  avocations  of  life, 
as  when  the  flood  came  upon  the  world,  and  as  when  fire  came 
down  upon  Sodom ;  he  knew  what  he  will  do  when  he  comes — 
that  he  will  awake  all  the  dead,  sit  on  a  throne  of  glory,  assem- 
ble all  the  descendants  of  Adam  before  him,  dividing  them  as 
a  shepherd  separates  the  sheep  from  the  goats;  he  knew  that  he 
will  call  those  on  his  right  hand  into  his  eternal  kingdom,  and 
expel  those  on  his  left  into  eternal  fire  prepared  for  the  devil 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  269 

and  his  angels.  He  even  knew  that  two  men  would  be.  in  the 
same  bed,  that  two  women  would  be  grinding  at  the  same  hand- 
mill,  and  that  in  each  instance,  one  would  be  taken  and  the  other 
left.  If  he  knew  all  this  respecting  his  second  coming,  how  is  it 
possible  that  he  did  not  know  the  ^recisei  time  of  it?  This 
question  no  man  on  earth  can  answer ;  and  I  presume  that  the 
same  is  true  of  the  angels  in  heaven.  It  would  be  an  abso- 
lutely incredible  statement,  had  it  not  con  e  from  lips  that  can 
not  speak  falsely.  And  are  we  not  here  justifiable  in  saying 
that  he  who  assigns  any  other  limit  to  the  knowledge  of  Jesus 
is  guilty  of  a  presumption  that  is  near  akin  to  blasphemy? 
I  think  so.  And  I  think  that  the  soul  of  eveiry  man  who  wor- 
ships Jesus  as  Lord  must  shudder  at  the  thought  of  charging 
him  with  ignorance  respecting  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which 
were  written  by  holy  men  guided  by  his  own  Holy  Spirit. 

3  Did  Jesus  affirm  ?  We  now  ask,  Did  Jesus  make  any 
explicit  affirmations  in  respect.  tO'  the  authorship  of  Old  Testa- 
ment books,  or  to  the  reality  of  events  recorded  in  them  ? 
Before  producing  any  instances  of  the  kind,  I  will  first  quote 
some  of  the  utterances  of  scholars  who  deny  that  he  did,  and 
try  to  test  the  grounds  of  their  denial ;  and,  as  Professor  Briggs 
has  elaborated  the  argument  on  the  negative  side  more  exten- 
sively than  any  other  recent  writer  of  my  acquaintance,  he 
shall  be  heard  first. 

Before  I  come  to  closer  issues,  it  may  benefit  some  readers 
to  see  how  this  professor  deals  with  a  sweeping  remark  by 
which  it  has  become  common  to  wave  aside  the  whole  discussion 
on  which  we  are  entering.  Quoting  this  re^mark  from  its  origi- 
nator, the  professor  says: 

Clericus  went  too  far  wlien  he  said  that  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles did  not  come  into  the  world  to  teach  criticism  to  the  Jews.  Then 
he  adds:  "The  response  of  Herman  Witsius,  that  Jesus  came  to  teach 
the  truth,  and  could  not  be  imposed  upon  by  common  ignorance,  or  be 
induced  to  favor  vulgar  errors,  is  just"   {Bih.  Study,  p.  184). 

This  answer  must  be  approved  by  every  one  who  has  faith 
in  Jesus  as  a  teacher  sent  from  God. 

Immediately  after  pronouncing  this  just  judgment,  our 
professor  proceeds  to  say:  "And  yet  we  can  not  altogether  deny 


270  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

the  principle  of  acconiunodatioai  in  Uie  life  and  teachings  of 
Jesus."  He  saipporta  this  assertion  by  referring  to  what  Jesus 
says  of  tlie  permission  of  divorce  under  Moses,  saying  that 
"Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,  suffered 
ancient  Israel  to  divorce  their  wives  for  reasons  which  the 
higher  dispensation  will  not  admit  as  valid."  This  proves  that 
God,  under  the  former  dispensation,  gave  Israel  a  law^  which 
he  would  not  have  given  had  the  state  of  their  hearts  been 
different;  but  how  does  this  show  that  the  principle  of  accom- 
modation is  found  "in  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus"?  The 
proof  and  the  proposition  to  be  proved  are  as  far  apart  as  Moses 
and  Jesus.  Moreover,  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that  the  reasons 
for  this  law  were  such  as  "tlie  higher  dispensation  will  not 
admit  as  valid ;"  for,  in  presenting  tliem  to  his  hearers,  Jesus 
did  admit  that  they  were  valid  at  tlie  time  in  which  they  were 
acted  upon.  Moses  did  right  in  granting  the  privilege  of 
divorce  at  will,  although  it  was  not  permitted  in  the  beginning, 
and  was  not  to  be  i>ermitted  under  the  new  dispensation. 

In  pursuance  of  this  same  line  of  thought,  Professor  Briggs 
quotes  from  Dr.  S.  H.  Turner  the  following  sentence: 

It  is  not  required  in  a  religious  or  inspired  teacher,  nor,  indeed, 
would  it  be  prudent  or  right,  to  shock  the  prejudices  of  his  uninformed 
hearers,  by  inculcating  truths  which  they  are  unprepared  to  receive 
(i6.,  p.  185). 

So  far  as  this  is  intended  to  apply  to  the  question  in  hand, 
truths  about  the  authorship  and  credibility  of  Old  Testament 
books,  it  is  wide  of  the  mark;  for  no  one  claims  that  Jesus 
should  have  corrected  prevailing  beliefs  on  critical  questions. 
The  only  question  is.  Did  he  affirm  the  correctness  of  those 
beliefs?  But,  apart  from  this,  the  principle  here  laid  down 
is  untrue  to  the  facts  in  the  life  of  Jesus;  for  he  was  constantly 
shocking  the  prejudices  of  his  hearers  by  inculcating  truths 
which  they  were  unprepared  to  receive ;  and  it  was  on  acconnt 
of  his  persistence  in  inculcating  such  truths  that  they  hated 
him  and  crucified  him.  The  same  is  true  of  the  apostles,  and 
of  all  the  prophets  of  Israel.  The  same  is  true  also'  of  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  himself;  for  it  was  because  of  his  inculcating, 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  271 

what  lie  regards  as  just  sucli  tniths  on  higher  criticisim,  in  the 
presence  of  a  people  not  pre])arGcl  to  roceivo  them  on  account 
of  thedr  alleged  ignorancQ,  tJiat  he  was  tried  as  a  heretic  and 
dismissed  from  the  ministry  of  tlie  Presbyterian  Church.  This 
experience,  which  has  comio  u}X)n  himi  since  he  wrote  the  book 
froan  which  I  quote,  onght  to  convince  him,  if  it  has  not^  that 
the  statement  in  question  is  erroneous. 

On  the  next  page  (186)  Professor  Briggs  repeats,  in  a 
slightly  different  form,  but  in  closer  connection  with  the  (pies-- 
tion  at  issue,  the  remark  just  disposed  of.  He  says :  ''Thei-e 
were  no  sufficient  reasons  why  he  should  coirrect  the  prevailing 
views  as  to  Old  Testaiinent  books,  and  by  his  authority  deter- 
mine these  literary  questions."  Of  course,  there  were  not; 
especially  if  those  "prevailing  views"  were  correct,  as  we 
believa  But  no  one  claims  that  he  should  have  corrected  those 
vieiws,  even  if  they  were  incorrect.  We  claim  only  that,  if  they 
were  inco'rrect.,  he  conld  not  have  endorsed  tlieni ;  and  the  only 
question  is,  Did  hei,  oa-  did  he  not^  endorsei  tihem? 

Another  evasive  remark  follows  on  the  same  page: 

If  they  [Jesus  and  the  apostles]  used  the  language  of  the  day  in 
speaking  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  it  does  not  follow  that  they 
adopted  any  of  the  views  of  authorship  and  editorship  that  went  with 
these  terms  in  the  Talmud,  or  in  Josephus,  or  in  the  apocalypse  of 
Ezra;  for  we  are  not  to  interpret  their  words  on  this  or  any  other 
subject  by  Josephus,  or  the  Mishna,  or  the  apocalypse  of  Ezra,  or  by 
any  other  external  authorities,  but  by  the  plain  grammatical  and  con- 
textual sense  of  their  words  themselves. 

All  this  is  strictly  true,  but  it  amoiints  to  nothing  in  this 
discussion  ISTo  one  contends  that  the  inspired  utterances  a.lx>ut 
Old  Testament  books  involve  an  adoption  of  the  views  of  any 
of  the  authors  mentioned.  Everybody  agrees  that  these  utter- 
ances are  to  be  interpreted  "by  the  plain  grammatical  and  con- 
textual sense  of  their  words ;"  but  in  this  interpretation  refer- 
ence must  invariably  be  had  tO'  thie  sense  in  which  his  hearers 
imderstood  the  words  employed.  Jesus  could  not,  in  address- 
ing certain  hearers,  employ  the  deceptive  trick  of  using  "the 
language  of  the  day"  in  a  sense  quite  different  from  what  was 
customary,  without  an  intimation  that  he  was  doing  so.    When, 


272  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

tlieii,  lie  used.  '*tihe  language  of  the  day"  in  speaking  of  Old 
Testament  books,  he  used  it  as  his  hearers  understood  it,  and 
his  eLxact  meaning  is  tO'  be  gatliered  from  "the  plain  grammat- 
ical and  contextual  sense  of  the  words  themselves."  I  suppose 
that  Professor  Briggs  would  accept  this  modification  of  his 
remark. 

After  dealing  witli  theise  general  reanarks  of  Professor 
Briggs  intended  tO'  break  in  advance  the  force  of  any  testimony 
of  Jesus  on  critical  questions,  I  now  come  tO'  something  more 
specific — his  application  of  critical  principles  tO'  the  Book  of 
Psalms.  Here  he  does  a  gratuitous  work  by  laboring  to  refute 
the  idea  tliat  David  wrote  all  of  the  psalms  in  this  book.  I 
think  it  impossible  for  any  one  wbo  has  ever  read  tlie  Psalms 
to  conclude  that  David  wrote  all  of  tbem,  unless  h©  should  come 
to  the  question  with  a.  foregone  conclusiom,  and  employ  tbe 
same  kind  of  special  pleading  common  with  the  destructive 
critics.  A  sample  of  tliis  kind  of  sophistry,  covering  a  whole 
page  in  fine  type,  is  copied  by  the  professor  from  an  old  Pu- 
ritan commentary  on  Hebrews ;  and  on  reading  it  one  is  strik- 
ingly reminded  of  some  later  pages  from  the  professor's  own 
pen.  Such  is  the  N^ew  Testament  evidence,  however,  in  favor 
of  the  Davidic  authorsliip  of  six  of  the  Psalms,  that  on  this 
evidence  he  admits  them  tO'  be  David's.  This  is  an  admission 
that  the  testimony  of  Jesus  or  an  apostle  on  the  question  of 
authorship,  when  specific,  is  conclusive.  Among  the  six  is 
Psalm  ex.,  and  of  this  I  wish  to  speak  particularly,  because  it 
serves  better  than  any  other  the  i>urpose  of  determining 
whether  the  testimony  of  Jesus  on  the  question  of  authorship 
is  eonolusive.  Professor  Briggs  concedes  that  it  is,  at  least 
in  this  instance,  and  yet.  he  does  not  give  the  evidence  its  full 
force.  His  quotation  of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  incomplete.,  and 
his  argument  based  on  them  is  weaker  than  the  text  justifies. 
But  of  this,  more  hereafter.       (See  Bih.  Study,  187-190.) 

Notwithstanding  this  decisive  judgment  expressed  in  Bib- 
lical Study  in  the  year  1883,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that 
Professor  Briggs  is  still  of  the  same  opinion.      The  critics  of 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  216 

his  school  are  progressive;  and  the  conclusions  of  to-day  may 
not  be  those  of  to-morrow.  Six  years  later,  Professor  Driver 
published  his  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  he,  though  considered  a  conservative,  takes  thfii  oppo- 
site ground.      He  says: 

This  Psalm  [the  110th],  though  it  may  be  ancient,  can  hardly 
have  been  composed  by  David  {Int.,  384,  note). 

In  support  of  this  conclusion  he  indulges  in  somo  very 
singular  reasoning.  He  first  says:  "If  read  without  pre  ju- 
dicium, it  produces  the  irresistible  impression  of  having  been 
written,  not  by  a  king  with  reference:  to  an  invisible  spiritual 
being  standing  above  him  as  his  superior,  but  by  a  projyhet 
with  reference  to  the  theocratic  hing."  Just  sO'.  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  way  in  which  Jesus  inter]>rets  it.  He  claims  that 
it  was  written  with  reference  to  the  theocratic  king;  that  is, 
with  reference  to  himself  after  he  entered  upon  his  mediato- 
rial reign.  It  was  not  written  by  a  king  with  reference  to  "an 
invisible  spiritual  being  standing  above  him,"  but  by  a  prophet, 
who  was  also  a  king,  with  reference  to  a  glorified  being  in 
human  form,  yet.  destined  tO'  be^  far  above  every  earthly  king. 
The  author  goes  on  to-  give  three  reasonSi  in  support  of  this 
undisputed  proposition ;  but  as  the  proposition  is  admitted,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  consider  the  reasons. 

Not  satisfied  with  this  eflFort,  the  author,  in  the  same  parar 

graph,  makes  another  and  distinct  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the 

•Lord's  testimony.      He  says: 

In  the  question  addressed  by  our  Lord  to  the  Jews  (Matt.  xxii.  41-46; 
Mark  xii.  35-37;  Luke  xx.  41-44)  his  object,  it  is  evident,  is  not  to 
instruct  them  on  the  authorship  of  the  Psalm,  but  to  argue  from  its 
contents;  and  though  he  assumes  the  Davidic  authorship,  accepted  gen- 
erally at  the  time,  yet  the  cogency  of  his  argument  is  unimpaired,  so 
long  as  it  is  recognized  that  the  Psalm  is  a  Messianic  one,  and  that 
the  august  language  used  in  it  of  the  Messiah  is  not  compatible  with 
the  position  of  one  who  was  a  mere  human  son  of  David  {ib.,  384,  385, 
note). 

These  remarks  could  be  regarded  as  mere  trifling  were 
they  not  found  in  a  volume  written  with  the  most  serious  pur- 
pose by  a  "reverent"  author.  They  seem  tO'  have  been  written 
with  only  a  vagiie  remembrance  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  which 


274  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

they  refea',  and  certainly  without  a  close  examin-ation  of  them. 
Let  us  see  what  Jesus  actually  says : 

"Now  while  the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  Jesus  asked 
them  a  question,  saying,  What  think  ye  of  the  Christ?  whose  son  is  he? 
They  say  unto  him.  The  son  of  David.  He  saith  to  them,  How  then 
doth  David  in  the  spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying,  The  Lord  saith  to  my 
I>ord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I  put  thine  enemies  under  thy  feet? 
It  David  then  calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son?" 

It  is  as  clear  as  clay  tliat  the  argument  of  Jesus  depends 
for  its  validity  on  the  fact  that  David  is  the  author.  True, 
as  Professor  Driver  says,  his  object  was  not  tO'  "instruct  thean 
on  the  authorship;"  for  that  they  perfectly  understood;  yet  his 
argument  is  worthless  if  David  was  not  tlie  author.  If  the 
author  was  some  other  prophet  than  David,  what  would  be  the 
sense  of  demanding,  "If  David  calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his 
son  ?"  That  he  was  the  son  of  the  man  who  called  him  Lord,  is 
the  essential  fad  in  the  argument;  and  any  attempt  tO'  elimi- 
nate or  to  obscure  this  fact,  is  a  bad  case  of  wresting  the 
Scriptures. 

Professor  Oheyne,  the  most  radical  of  English  critics, 
unites  with  the  German  radicals  in  denying  the  Davidic  au- 
thorship of  tlhis  Psalm,  but,  unlike  Professor  Driver  and  other 
conserA^atives,  he  saves  himself  the  hopeless  task  of  trying  to 
reconcile  this  denial  with  the  words  of  Jesus.  (See  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Psalms,  xvi.  301.)  In  thus  ruling  Jesus  our 
of  court  as  a  witness,  in  the  case,  he  plays  a  daring  game,  but 
he  saves  himself  the  necessity  of  wresting  away  from  the  words, 
of  Jesus  the  only  meaning  which  they  can  convey.  It  is  not 
easy  to  decide  which  is  the  2>referable  alte-rnative.  The  man 
who  takes  either  alternative  antagonizes  Jesus  gratuitously, 
and  he  does  so  at  his  peril. 

I  now  oome  to  the  testimonies  of  Jesus  respecting  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  But,  before  considering  par- 
ticular instances  of  this  testimony,  it  may  be  well  to  quote 
what  Professor  Driver  says  on  the  general  question  of  sucli 
testimony : 

There  is  no  record  of  the  question,  whether  a  particular  portion 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  by  Moses,  or  David,  or  Isaiah,  having 


TIJIC    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  275 

ever  been  submitted  to  him;  and  had  it  been  so  submitted,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing  what  his  answer  would  have  been  (Int.,  xii.,  xiii.). 

This  first  statement  is  tnie;  and  it  is  equally  true  that  no 
advocate  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pcntatonch  has  ever 
claimed  tliat  such  a  question  was  submitted  to  Jesus.  But 
Professor  Driver  knows,  as  well  as  he  knows  his  owii  name, 
that  a  man  ma.y  say  who  wrote  a  certain  book,  or  part  of  a 
book,  without  having  been  questioned  on  the  subject.  I  wonder 
if,  in  lecturing-  before  his  classes  in  the  university,  he  never 
names  the  authors  of  books  which  he  quotes  till  some  student 
calls  for  the  nauues.  What  kind  of  teacher  would  Jesus  have 
been  had  he  never  given  his  hearers  a  piece  of  information  t:ll 
they  called  for  it  ?  And  what  would  have  been  thought  of 
him  if,  in  quoting  books  to  his  hearers,  he  had  never  given  the 
names  of  the  authors  quoted  till  they  were  called  for?  How 
could  this  ingenious  writer  have  penned  the  sentence  just 
quoted  without  being  conscious  that  he  was  evading  the  ques^ 
tion  which  he  was  professing  to  discuss  ?  If  this  is  throwing 
doubt  on  his  perfect  candor,  respect  for  his  good  sense  forces 
me  to  it. 

True,  we  have  no  record  of  the  question  l>eiing  submitted, 
Did  Moses  or  David  or  Isaiah  write  tJiis  or  that  ?  but  what 
does  this  amount  to  if  we  find  Jesus,  at  his  own  initiative, 
affirming  that  Moses  or  David  or  Isaiah  wrote  this  or  that? 
Is  his  voluntary  affirmation  to  be  called  in  question  or 
explained  away  because  no  one  had  called  for  it  ?  I  think  not. 
Turn,  then,  to  what  I  shall  style  one  of  his  indirect  affirma- 
tions, and  let  us  come  to  closer  quarters  in  the  arginnent.  In 
his  disputation  ^\dt!h  the  Sadduoees,  Jesus  demanded :  "Have 
ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God  spake 
to  him,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob?"  (Mark  xii.  26). 

Xow,  it  is  admitted  by  all  scholars  that  there  was  in  the 
hands  of  tlie  Jews  at  that  period  a  book,  always  ^^^'itten  as  a 
single  book,  and  known  by  them  as  "The  Book  of  Moses."  It 
is  admitted  that  that  book  is  tbe  one  kuo^^^l  to  us  as  the  Pen- 
tateuch, now  divided  into  five  books.      It  is  admitted  that  the 


276  THE    AUTHOR&HIP    OF 

Jews  universally  believed  that  tliis  book  was  written  by  Moses, 
and  that  for  this  reason  they  called  it  ''The  Book  of  Moses." 
When,  then,  addressing  men  who'  thus  believed,  Jesua  calls  it 
"The  Book  of  Moses/'  did  he  oonfirm  their  belief  that  Moses 
wag  its  author,  or  did  he  not?  To  test  this,  we  need  only  to 
suppose  that,  after  the  conversation,  some  one  had  said  to  the 
Sadducee  who  had  been  the  spokesman  of  his  party,  "That 
man  Jesus  does  not  believe  tliat^  Moses  wrote  thei  book  from 
which  you  and  he  quoted;"  what  wo'uld  the  Sadduce©  have 
answered  ?  Would  he  not  have  said,  "You  are  mistaken ;  he 
called  it  'The  Book  of  Moses,'  just  as  we  do;  and  if  he  did  not 
mean  what  he  said,  he  talks  deceitfully." 

Here  we^  are  met  by  an  argument  which  Professor  Briggs 
has  stated  with  as  much  force  as  can  be  given  it,  and  it  is 
endorsed  by  all  the  "critics,"  whether  "radicals"  or  "evangel- 
icals." Quoting  and  endorsing  tbe  words  of  Professor  Brown, 
Lis  colleague,  he  saysi*. 

The  use  of  a  current  pseudonym  to  designate  the  author  no  more 
committed  Jesus  to  the  declaration  that  that  was  the  author's  real 
name,  than  our  use  of  the  expression,  "Junius  says,"  would  commit 
us  to  a  declaration  that  the  "Letters  of  Junius"  were  composed  by  a 
person  of  that  name  (Bib.  Study,  189,  190,  note). 

This  argument  has  more  plausibility  than  the  one  quoted 
above  from  ProfessO'r  Driver ;  but  it  is  equally  fallacious.  To 
a  class  of  students  correctly  informed  as  to  the  letters  of 
Junius,  Professor  Briggs  or  Professor  Brown  could  use  the 
expression,  "Junius  says,"  without  misleading  them;  but  sup- 
pose either  of  them  was  addressing  a  class  of  students  who  were 
so  ill-infoirmed  that  they  supposed  a  man  whose  real  name  was 
Junius  to  have  been  the  author  of  these  letters;  and  suppose 
that  the  professor,  in  addressing  them,  knew  that  they  so 
thought ;  would  he  then  feel  at  liberty  to  quote  the  letters  again 
and  again,  saying,  "Thus  saith  Junius"?  Neither  of  them 
would  think  of  doing  it.  They  would  be  ashamed  to  do  it. 
They  would  feel  bound  in  honor  to  either  inform  the  students, 
or  quote  the  words  as  those  of  a  distinguished  writer  without 
naming  him.      They  would  feel  conscientiously  bound  to  avoid 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY  27* 

committing  themselves  before  that  class  to  its  ovm  ignorant 
conception.  Yet  they  openly  charge  on  Jesus  our  Lord  a  prac- 
tice in  which  they  would  themselves  disdain  to  indulge. 

We  may  try  this  argument  hy  another  example.  Neither 
of  the  three  professors,  Driver,  Briggs  nor  BroAvn,  believes  that 
Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  does  any  one  of  them 
ever  quote  that  document  as  an  epistle  of  Paul  ?  Does  any 
one  of  them  ever  say,  "Thus  saith  the  apostle  Paul,"  and  follow 
this  with  a  quotation  from  Hebrews  ?  They  would  consider  it 
unmanly  and  deceptive  to  do  so.  Why,  then,  will  they  charge 
Jesus  with  quoting  a  book  which  he  knew  Moses  did  not  write, 
and  styling  it  "The  Book  of  Moses"  ?  How  easily  he  could 
have  avoided  committing  himself  thus,  by  saying  to  the  Sad- 
ducees,  "Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  your  law?" 

Such  scholars  as  thesei  would  not  thus  wrest  the  wO'rds  of 
Jesus,  and  do  him  this  dishonor,  were  they  not  impelled  by  a 
false  theory. 

The  testimony  of  Jesus  respecting  the  authorship  of  Old 
Testament  books  has  been  passed  over  in  a  very  cursory  manner 
by  most  of  the  destructive  critics.  They  have  had  little  to 
say  abomt  it,  because  they  have  found  little  that  they  could  say 
with  profit  to  their  own  cause.  Any  position  taken  by  respect- 
able scholars  -which  affects  in  the  slightest  degree  the  absolute 
authority  belonging  to  all  utterances  of  Jesus  our  Lord,  or  the 
absolute  sanctity  of  his  character,  demands  our  profoundest 
consideration  before  we  can  consider  it  with  favor.  If  tie 
made  any  affirmation  which  was  not  true,  his  authority  as  a 
teacher  is  invalidated;  and  if  he  aifirmed  anything  which  he 
did  not  hnoiv  to  be  true,  he  fell  short  of  absolute  tnithfulness. 
Perfect  veracity  demands  that  a  man  shall  not  only  avoid 
affirmations  which  he  knows  to  be  false,  but  all  that  he  does 
not  know  to  be  true'. 

We  ask,  then,  most  solemnly,  and  with  a  view  to  the  most 
candid  answer.  Did  Jesus,  on  any  occasion,  affirm  unequivo- 
cally the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  writings  commonly  ascribed 
to  Moses  ?     Let  us  try  his  words  addressed  to  the  Jcavs  at  the 


278  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

feast  of  tabernacles,  and  recorded  in  John  vii.  19 :  "Did  not 
Moses  give  you  tlie  law,  and  }'et  none  of  you  doetli  the  law?" 

That  the  Jews  had  at  that  time  a  book  which  they  knew 
as  the  law  of  Moses,  and  which  we  know  as  the  Pentateuch, 
is  unquestioned  and  unquestionablet  It  is  equally  unquestion- 
able that  by  ''the  laAv"  Jesus  here  meant  that  book;  for,  on 
any  other  hypothesis,  we  should  have  to  suppose  that  he  dealt 
uncandidly  with  his  hearers.  He  could  not  have  meant  by 
"the  law"  some  nucleus  of  the  law  which  came  from  Moses, 
while  the  main  body  of  it  was  an  accmnulation  growing  out  of 
the  experience  of  ages,  as  some  critics  have  conjectured ;  for 
candor  required  him  to  use  the  expression  as  his  hearers  under- 
stood it.  Neither  could  he  have  referred  to  any  particular 
statute  of  the  law^  which  may  have  come  from  Moses,  while  the 
rest  had  some  other  origin ;  for  his  demand  had  reference  to 
the  law  as  a  whole,  of  which  lie  denied  that  any  of  them  had 
kept  it.  They  had  all  observed  some  parts  of  it,  but  none  had 
kept  it  as  a  wdiole.  There  is  no  uncertainty,  then,  as  to  what 
he  meant  by  "the  law."  What  did  he  mean  by  the  demand, 
"Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law  ?"  ?  In  this  question  he 
employs  the  rhetorical  figure  of  erotesis,  which  is  the  most 
emphatic  fonn  of  making  an  assertion.  It  assumes  that  neither 
with  the  speaker  nor  w^ith  his  hearers  is  any  other  answer  pos- 
sible but  the  one  implied.  Another  example  is  the  demand, 
"Did  I  not  choose  you,  the  twelve?"  (John  vi.  70).  Another, 
the  well-known  words  of  Paul,  "Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ? 
or  were  you  baptized  into  the  name  of  Paul?"  (I.  Cor.  i.  13). 
His  demand,  then,  is  the  most  emphatic  assertion  possible  that 
neither  with  himself  nor  with  his  hearers  could  there  be  any 
doubt  that  Moses  gave  them  the  law.  Affirmation  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  law  more  emphatic  or  more  explicit  there 
could  not  be.  But  Jesus  could  not  thus  affirm  that  which  he 
did  not  know  to  be  true;  and  it  follows  as  an  irresistible  con- 
clusion that  Jesus  knew  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the  law 
which  the  Jews  connected  with  his  name. 

There  is  not  room  here  for  any  of  the  evasive  remarks 
employed  by  destructive  critics  to  obscure  the  Lord's  testimony. 


Tlli:    BOOK    OP    DEUTERONOMy.  279 

The  illustration  of  the  lettei-s  of  Jimiiis  can  not  bo  applied; 
for,  to  (make  it  applicable,  botli  the  speaker  and  the  hearer 
sliO'iild  believe  that  the  author  of  the  letters  was  a  man  named 
Junius,  and  both  would  be  deceived.  Professor  Briggs'  remark 
tliat  when  Jesus  ascribes  a  certain  law  to  Moses,  he  does  not 
assume  that  Moses  wrotei  the  book  in  which  that  law  is  now 
found,  can  not  apply ;  for  it  is  of  the  law  as  a  whole,  and  not 
of  any  particular  statutei,  that  the  demand  is  madei  Neither 
can  Professor  Driver's  assertion,  that  no  question  raised  by 
modern  criticism  was  presented  to  Jesus  for  an  answer,  apply 
in  this  case;  for,  while  it  is  tiiie  that  no  such  question  was 
pro'poainded,  Jesus  did,  without  a  question,  make  the  demand 
of  his  own  accord,  and  use  the  unquestioned  fact  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  to  condenm  his  enemies.  If  any  other  than  Moses 
had  given  the  law,  his  argument  would  have  been  fallacious. 

Finally,  we  must  not  fail  to  observe  that^  if  Jesus  had  not 
desired  to  commit  himself  on  the  authorship  of  the  law,  it 
would  have  been  the  easiest  tbing  in  the  world  for  him  to  have 
avoided  it  withoiut  weakening  the  rebuke  which  he  adminis- 
tered. He  could  have  said,  as  even  radical  critics  are  now 
willing  to  say,  "Did  not  God  give  yO'U  the  law  ?"  meaning  that 
God  gave  it,  not  by  inspiration,  but  in  a  providential  way.  Or 
he  could  have  said,  "Do  you  not  believe  tbat  Moses  gave  you 
the  law  ?  and  yet  none  of  you  doeth  it." 

The  fact  that  he  cho:/e  neither  of  these,  nor  any  other  fom 
of  speech  whicli  would  have  been  non-committal  on  the  ques- 
tion of  authorship,  and  that  instead  thereof  he  chose  to  commit 
himself  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  that  human  speech  with- 
out an  oath  would  permit,  proves  that  it  was  his  deliberate 
intention  to  do  so,  and  to  thus  leave  on  record  his  positive  testi- 
mony on  this  important  question.  If  he  had  known — and  wiho 
may  say  that  he  did  not? — that  this  question  would  arise  in 
the  coming  ages,  he  could  not  have  anticipated  it  with  a  more 
decisive  answer.  How  vain  the  remark,  then,  which  we  have 
quoted  from  Professor  Driver,  that  if  critical  questions  had 
been  propounded  to  Jesus,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  how 
he  would  have  answered  them ! 


2^6  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

The  most  specific  affirmation  by  Jesus  of  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch  is  found  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  John, 
and  it  reads  thus:  "Think  not  tliat  I  will  accuse  you  to  the 
Father:  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  on  whom 
ye  have  set  your  hope.  For  if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would 
believe  me;  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his 
writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words?"  In  this  passage 
three  facts  receive  emphasis,  and  they  are  emphasized  as  the 
grounds  on  which  the  unbelievers  addressed  are  condemned. 
The  first  is  that  Moses,  the  Moses  on  whom  they  "set  their 
hopei,"  is  their  accuser.  Second,  the  ground  on  which  Moses 
accuses  them  is,  that  they  did  not  believe  what  he  wrote  of 
Jesus:  "If  ye  believe  Moses,  ye  would  believe  me;  for  he 
wrote  of  me."  A  more  explicit  statement  that  Moses  wrote 
of  Jesus  could  not  be  framed  in  human  speech.  Third,  the 
ground  on  which  Moses  accuses  them  is  stated  in  another 
form,  by  the  assertiom  that  they  believed  not  certain  writings 
which  are  called  his:  "If  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how 
sJiall  ye  believe  my  words?" 

l^ow,  it  is  a  historical  fact,  unquestioned  and  unquestion- 
able, as  we  have  said  before,  that  the  Jews  addressed  by  Jesus 
had  certain  writings  which  they  knew  as  the  writings  of  Moses. 
Jesus  here  distinctly  recognizes  them  as  such.  Not  only  so,  but 
by  placing  these  writings  of  Moses  in  antithesis  with  his  o^vti 
words,  he  leaves  as  little  room  to  doubt  that  these  writings  came 
from  Moses  as  that  his  own  words  came  from  himself.  Fur- 
tliermore,  he  affirms,  and  makes  it  the  basis  of  his  argument, 
that  in  those  writings  Moses  wrote  of  Jesus — in  what  passage 
or  in  what  words,  it  is  not  needful  that  we  now  inquire — and 
he  declares  that  Moses  is  the  accuser  of  the  unbelievers  because 
tliey  believed  not  what  Moses  thus  wrote.  If  it  was  not  Moses 
himself  who'  thus  wrote,  and  if  the  writings  referred  tO'  as  his 
were  not  his,  then  the  argument  of  Jesus  falls  to  the  ground, 
and  this  whole  passage  from  his  lips  is  meaningless.  And  if 
here  we  have  not  an  unequivocal  and  unmistakable  affirmation 
of  tlie  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  I  defy  any  man 
to  frame  such  an  affirmation. 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  281 

Perhaps  some  of  my  readers  are  ready  to  ask,  What  answer 
do  the  destructive  critics  give  to  this  presentation  ?  The  ques- 
tion is  pertinent..  If  th&y  have  no  answCT  to  give,  they  sliould 
hoild  their  peace  forever  on  the  main  issue.  The  radicals  see 
the  difficulty  very  clearly,  and  they  answer,  with  all  candor,  that 
Jesus  was  mistaken.  They  make  no  effort  to  explain  away 
his  words.  The  Evangelicals,  as  Professor  Briggs  calls  them, 
have  seen  the  difficulty;  it  would  be  disparaging  to  them  to 
hint  that  they  have  not ;  but,  so  far  as  my  reading  has  extended, 
they  have  not  grappled  with  it.  This  we  shall  now  show  as 
to  Professors  Drivei-  and  Briggs,  by  quoting  all  that  they  say 
on  the  subject, 

4.  The  New  Critics  on  This  Testimony.     Professor  Driver 

formally  introduces  the  issue  on.  page  xii.  of  the  preface  to  his 

Introduction,  and  he  states  it  thus : 

It  is  objected,  however,  that  some  of  the  conclusions  of  critics 
respecting  the  Old  Testament  are  incompatible  with  the  authority  of 
our  blessed  Lord,  and  that  in  loyalty  to  him  we  are  precluded  from 
accepting  them. 

After  this  very  fair  statement  of  the  issue,  he  proceeds  with 
a  series  of  statements  intended  to  show  that  the  objection  is  not 
well  taken.  The  first  is  a  cautious  approach  to  the  discussion, 
and  is  stated  in  these  words : 

That  our  Lord  appealed  to  the  Old  Testament  as  the  record  of  a 
revelation  in  the  past,  and  as  pointing  forward  to  himself,  is  un- 
doubted; but  these  aspects  of  the  Old  Testament  are  perfectly  consistent 
with  a  critical  view  of  its  structure  and  growth. 

This  remark  is  non-comimittal.  Of  course,  these  aspects  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  consistent  with  a  critical  view  of  its 
structure  and  growth ;  for  instance,  with,  the  critical  view  taken 
in  Home's  Introduction,  or  in  Bissell's  Origin  and  Structure 
of  the  Pentateuch — the  critical  vieav  which  Driver  and  others 
now  denounce  as  traditional.  But  the  question  is,  Are  they 
consistent  with  the  critical  view  taken  by  Professor  Driver? 
They  are  certainly  not  consistent  with  that  taken  by  Kuenen 
and  Wellhausen;  for  they  both  deny  "a  revelation"  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  they  deny  the  "pointing  forward" 
to  Jesus  of  which  Driver  speaks.     On  the  real  issue,  whetlier 


282  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

they  are  consistent  with  the  critical  views  of  Driver  and  those 

who  stand  with  him,  he  thus  far  gives  only  his  affirmation. 

His  next  remark  is  this: 

That  our  Lord,  in  so  appealing  to  it,  designed  to  pronounce  a 
verdict  on  the  authority  and  age  of  its  different  parts,  and  to  foreclose 
all  future  inquiry  into  these  subjects,  is  an  assumption  for  which  no 
sufficient  ground  can  be  alleged. 

This  remark  is  totally  irrelevant  The  expression,  "in  so 
appealing  to  it,"  means,  in  the  connection,  ap}>ealing  to  it  as 
"the  record  of  a  revelation  in  the  past,  and  pointing  forward  to 
himself."  As  a  matter  of  oonirsei,  in  so  alluding  to  it  he  pro- 
nounced no  verdict  on  the  authorship  and  age  of  its  diiferent 
parts ;  nedther  has  anybody  eiver  said  tha.t  he  did.  Why  answer 
objections  that  have  never  been  made?  Why  not  answer  the 
objections  which  have  been  made,  instead  of  thus  setting  up 
and  assailing  men  of  straw?  This  is  the  common  resort  of 
sophists  when  they  are  conscious  of  inability  to  answer  the  real 
objections  of  their  opponents. 

But  our  critic  continues  in  the  same  strain  by  adding: 

Had  such  been  his  aim,  it  would  have  been  out  of  harmony  with 
the  entire  method  and  tenor  of  his  teaching. 

Had  what  been  his  aim  ?  The  reference  is  to  pronouncing 
a  verdict  on  the  authority  and  age  of  the  diffc'rent  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament.  But  nobody  pretends  that  such  was  his  aim. 
We  are  inquiring  whether  he  affirmed  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch.  We  have  never  affirmed,  and  have  never  believed, 
that  Jesus  said  anything  about  its  age  and  its  structure  beyond 
what  is  involved  in  its  authorship.  Again  we  ask,  why  does 
so  acute  an  author  as  Professor  Driver  continually  evade  the 
issue  which  he  himself  so  clearly  stated  at  the  outset? 

His  next  remark  is  this : 

In  no  single  instance,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  did  he  anticipate 
the  results  of  scientific  inquiry  or  historical  research. 

Perhaps  he  did  not,  when  scientific  inquiry  and  historical 
research  are  properly  conducted ;  but  what  has  this  remark  to 
do  with  the  question  at  issue  ?  Wliy  did  not  Professor  Driver 
say,  In  no  single  instance,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  did  Jesus 


*rHK    BOOK    01^    DEUTEkO^OMY.  28^ 

say  who  gave  the  law  to  Israel  ?    This  would  have  been  in  point  5 
but  this  he  could  not  say. 
Again  our  author  says: 

The  aim  of  His  teaching  was  a  religious  one;  it  was  to  set  before 
men  the  pattern  of  a  perfect  life,  to  move  them  to  imitate  it,  to  bring 
them  to  himself. 

Very  good ;  but  did  he  not,  in  doing  this,  rebuke  men  for  not 
keeping  the  law  which  he  said  Moses  gave  tliean,  and  for  not 
believing  the  writings  of  Moses  in  whom  they  put  their  trust  1 
Why  continue  thus  to  evade  the  issue  by  irrelevant,  remarks  ? 

In  the  next  sentence  we  find  an  indirect  admission  of  the 
truth,  with  an  attempt  to  break  its  forces : 

He  accepted,  as  the  basis  of  his  teaching,  the  opinions  of  the  Old 
Testament  current  around  him.  He  assumed,  in  his  allusions  to  it, 
the  premises  which  his  opponents  recognized,  and  which  could  not  have 
been  questioned  (even  had  it  been  necessary  to  question  them)  without 
raising  issues  for  which  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe,  and  which,  had 
they  been  raised,  would  have  interfered  seriously  with  the  paramount 
purpose  of  his  life. 

Strip  this  sentencei  of  its  ambiguity,  and  what  does  it  mean  ? 
It  means  that  Jesus  accepted  as  the  basis  of  his  teaching  the 
opinion,  among  others,  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  law. 
Did  he  accept  as  the  basis  of  his  teaching  an  opinion  which  he 
knew  to  be  false  ?  He  certainly  did  if  Moses  was  not  the 
author  of  the  law.  It  means>  that  "he  assumed,"  in  his  allu- 
sions to  the  law,  "the  premises  which  his  opponents  recognized.'* 
Did  he  assume  premises  which  he  knew  to  be  false  ?  So'  Pro- 
fessor Driver  must  think;  for  he  thinks  that  the  assumption 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  a  false  assump- 
tion, yet  he  holds  Jesus  guilty  of  that  assumption. 

The  additional  assertion  in  the  last  quotation,  that  these 
opinions  which  he  accepted  could  not  have  been  questioned  with- 
out raising  issues  for  which  the  time  was  not  ripe,  is  of  no 
force  whatever ;  for,  as  I  have,  said  before,  Jesus  did  raise  issues 
for  which  the  time  was  not  ri|>e,  for  some  of  which  he  was 
persecuted,  and  for  one  of  which  he  was  crucified.  He  knew 
nothing  of  that  time-serving  policy  Avhich  accepts  false  opinions 
and  makes  false  assumptions  tO'  avoid  conflicts  which  the  fear- 


gS4  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

less  utterance  of  the  truth  would  involve.  Moreover,  our  con- 
tention is  not  that  he  should  have  coa-rected  the  opinion,  sup- 
posing it  to  be  false,  thatMoses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  but  that 
he  would  not  and  could  not.  affirm  the  truth  of  that,  opinion, 
knowing  it  to  be  false.  That  he  did  affirm  it,  I  have  abun- 
dantly proved. 

In  order  to  fully  represent  Professor  Driver's  discussion  of 
this  issue,  I  must,  make  one  more  quotation  which  I  have  already 
made  use  of  in  a  fonmer  connection.      He  says : 

There  is  no  record  of  the  question,  whether  a  particular  portion 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  written  by  Moses  or  David  or  Isaiah,  having 
ever  been  submitted  to  him,  and,  had  it  been  submitted,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing  what  his  answer  would  have  been. 

As  we  have  said  before,  thei  fii-st  of  these  two  assertions  is 
true ;  but  it  makes  all  the  more  significant  the  fact  that,  without 
a  question  being  submitted,  he  volunteered  to  affirm  that  David 
wrote  the  110th  Psalm,  and  that  Moses  gave  the  law.  As  to 
his  last  assertion,  nothing  that  Professor  Driver  says  in  this 
whole  discussion  is  wilder.  When  Jesus  said,  "Did  not  Moses 
give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you  has  kept  it?"  does  not 
this  indicate  what  his  answer  would  have  been  if  one  of  his 
hearers  had  asked  him,  '"Did  Moses  give  us  the  law  ?"  ?  And 
when  he  said  to  another  company  of  Jews,  "If  you  do  not  be- 
lieve his  [Moses']  writings,  how  can  ye  believe  my  words  ?"  does 
this  give  no  indication  of  what  answer  hei  would  have  given  had 
one  asked  him,  "Do  you  then  believe  that  these  writings  came 
from  Moses  ?"  ? 

In  conclusion,  I  ask  the  reader,  how  can  you  account  for 
this  evasive  and  irrelevant  method,  on  the  part  of  so  learned 
and  logical  an  author  as  Professor  Driver,  in  discussing  so  sim- 
ple a  question  ?  When  he  has  an  open  path  before  him  his 
reasoning  is  clear  and  cogent.  He  walks  with  a  steady  stej), 
like  a  strong  man  on  solid  ground.  Why,  then,  this  faltering 
and  wandering  when  he  comes  to  discusssing  the  affirmations 
of  Jesus  respecting  the  Old  Testament?  Why  does  the  strong 
man  here  betray  such  weakness  ?  Why  but  because  he  here  felt 
conscious  of  the  weakness  of  his  cause? 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  285 

In  Biblical  Study,  the  most  elaborate  work  \vTittcai  by  Prof. 
Charles  A.  Brig-gs,  a  whole  chapter  is  devoted  to  "The  'New 
Testament  View  of  Old  Testament  Literature,"  and  we^  shall 
now  see  more  fully  how  he  deals  with  the  utterances  of  Jesus 
on  the  subject. 

On  page  192  he  says:  "Jesus  speaks  of  the  law  of  Moses 
(John  vii.  23)  and  tlie  book  of  Moses  (Mark  xii.  26)."  He 
cites  several  othea-  passages  from  Luke  and  Paul,  and  then  adds: 

These  are  all  cases  of  naming  books  cited.  They  have  as  their 
parallel  David  as  the  name  of  the  Psalter  in  Heb.  iv.  7  and  Acts  iv.  25; 
Samuel,  also  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  Acts  iii.  24.  It  is  certainly  reason- 
able to  interpret  Moses  in  these  passages  in  the  samQ.  way  as  the  name 
of  the  work  containing  his  legislation  and  the  history  in  which  he  is 
the  central  figure. 

We  can  judge  of  the  correctness  of  these:  remarks  only  hy 
seeing  what  is  said  in  the  passages  cited.  The  first  reads  thus: 
"If  a.  man  receiveth  circumcision  on  the  sabbath,  that  the  law 
of  Moses  be  not  broken,  are  ye  wroth  with  me  because  I  mad© 
a  man  every  whit  whole  on  the  sabbath  ?"  Is  this  a  mere  case 
of  "naming"  a  book  ?  There  is  nothing  said  of  the  book  except 
by  implication ;  but  there  is  something  said  of  a  law,  and  it  is 
called  "the  law  of  Moses."  If  Jesus  did  not  mean  to  commit 
himself  tO'  the  fact  tliat  this  law  was  given  by  Moses,  how  easily 
he  could  have  avoided  doing  so  by  saying  that  the  law  miglit 
not  be  broken.  In  the  next  preceding  verse  Jesus  makes  a 
statement  preparatory  to  this,  in  which  he  recognizes  as  real  the 
exact  relation  of  this  law  to  circumcision  which  is  set  forth  in 
the  Pentateuch.  He  says:  "For  this  cause  hath  Moses  given 
you  circumcision  (not  that  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the^  fathers)  ; 
and  on  the  sabbath  ye  circumcise  a  man."  Here  the  fact  tliat 
circumcision  was  first  ordained  in  the  time  of  the  fathers,  and 
not  originated  in  the  legislation  of  Moses,  is  set  forth  precisely 
as  in  our  Pentateuch,  and  Mosefe  is  again  credited  with  the 
legislation.  It  would  be  intei-esting  to  hear  from  Professor 
Briggs  the  reason  why  he  deals  thus  with  this  passage.  Had 
he  quoted  it,  instead  of  merely  citing  it,  he  would  scarcely  have 
impugned  the  intelligence  of  his  readers  by  using  it  as  he  doea 


286  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

The  second  passage  reads  thus :  ''As  tomching  the  dead,  that 
they  are  raised,  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  in  the 
place  concerning  the  bush,  how  God  spake  to  him,  saying,  1  ajn 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob  ?"  This  is  the  naming  of  a  book,  or,  more  projDerly 
speaking,  it  is  calling  a  book  by  its  name;  but  it  is  more:  it 
is  the  recog-nitioin  of  that  name  as  a  proper  one;  for  if  Jesus 
had  not  known  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  book,  we  can 
not  believe  that  he  would  have  confirmed  the  mistaken  beJief  of 
his  hearers  by  so  styling  it.  How  easily  he  could  have  avoided 
this,  and  still  made  his  reference  explicit,  by  saying,  "The  book 
of  the  law."  These  two  i>assageis  confirm  the  testimony  which 
they  are  employed  to  invalidate,  by  shewing  that  Jesus  indorsed 
the  belief  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  book  ascribed  to 
him  by  the  Jews. 

But  Profes'sor  Briggs  tries  still  further  tO'  escape  from  this 
conclusion  by  citing  alleged  parailels  in  the  use  of  the  names 
of  David  and  Samuel.  As  to  David,  the  language  of  the  teixt 
is  this:  ''Saying  in  David,  after  so  long  a  time,  To-day,  as  it 
hath  been  before  said.  To-day  if  ye  shall  hear  his  voice,  harden 
not  your  hearts."  What  right  has  Professor  Briggs  to  say  that 
the  name  "David"  is  here  used  "as  the  name  of  the  Psalter"  ? 
The  writer  quotes  from  David,  but  not  from  the  book  of  David, 
as  Jesus  quotes  from  "the  book  of  ]\Ioses."  The  Jews  knew 
no  book  of  David.  Their  book  of  Psalms,  like  our  own,  con- 
tained some  compositions  ascribed  to  David,  some  to  other 
writers,  and  many  tO'  no  particular  author.  No  Jew  who  had 
ever  read  the  book  through  could  have  supposed  that  David 
wrote  them  all.  When  they  quoted  David,  tlien,  they  quoted 
same  Psalm  which  they  suppoised  to  have  been  written  by 
David ;  and  this  passage  in  Hebrews  assumes  only  that  David 
wrote  the  Psalm  from  Avhich  the  quotation  is  made. 

The  professor's  remark  aboaU  Samuel,  just,  quoted  abovei, 
has  reference  to  an  argaiment  advanced  by  him  on  a  previous 
page,  and  one  which  I  believe  to  be  original  with  him.  He 
makes  much  use  of  it,  and  it  is  worthy,  on  this  account,  of  par- 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEVTEROl^OMY.  287 

ticular  notice.     On  page  11)0  the  aiitlior  quotes  the  words  of 

Peter,  "All  the  prophets,  from  Satinuel  and  them  that  followed 

after,  as  many  as  have  spoken,  they  also  told  of  these  days;" 

and  he  adds : 

The  reference  here  is  to  the  Book  of  Samuel,  for  the  reason  that 
there  is  no  Messianic  prophecy  ascribed  to  Samuel  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  context  forces  us  to  think  of  such  an  one.  We  find  it  in 
the  prophecy  of  Nathan  in  the  Book  of  Samuel.  These  historical  books 
then  bore  the  name  of  Samuel,  and  their  contents  are  referred  to 
as  Samuel's. 

This  is  ail  ingenious  pieoe^  of  argimientation ;  but  it  is 
marked  by  two  fatal  defects.  First,  it  assumes  as  a  fact  that 
"these  historical  books  then  bore  the  name  of  Samuel,"  whereas 
they  bore  no  n»me  in  the  Hebrefw  text ;  they  were  styled  the  first 
and  second  books  of  Kingdoms  in  the  Septuagint ;  and  they  were 
ne^^er  called  the  first  and  second  books  of  Samuel  till  A.  D. 
1488,  when  they  werei  so'  styled  in  Bomberg's  printed  Hebrew 
Bible.  Such  a  blunder  is  a  severe  satire  on  an  expert  in  his- 
torical criticism,  and  to  base  a  boasted  original  argument  on 
it  is  not  a  brilliant  illustration  of  the  "scientific  method."  This 
fact  demolishes  the  fo'undation  of  the  argu'ment.  Furthermore, 
if  it  is  true  that  no  Messianic  prophecy  is  ascribed  to  Samuel  in 
the  Old  Testament,  the  fact  that  one  is  ascribed  to  him  in  the 
IN'ew  Testament  ought  to  satisfy  a  man  who  believes  in  Christ 
and  in  the  inspiration  of  his  apostles.  When  Peter  said  that 
Samuel  prophesied  of  the  days  of  Christ,  we  ought  to  presume 
that  Peter  knew  what  he  was  talking  about. 

The  second  arginnent  by  Professor  Briggs  is  expressed  in 

the  following  paragraph : 

Jesus  represents  Moses  as  a  lawgiver,  giving  the  Ten  Command- 
ments (Mark  vii.  10),  the  law  of  the  leper's  offering  (Mark  i.  44,  etc.), 
the  law  of  divorce  (Matt.  xix.  7),  the  law  in  general  (John  vii.  19). 
The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  Moses  as  giving  the  law  of 
priesthood  (Heb.  vii.  14),  and  as  a  lawgiver  whose  law,  when  issued  at 
the  time,  could  not  be  disobeyed  with  impunity  (Heb.  x.  28).  These 
passages  all  represent  Moses  to  be  the  lawgiver  that  he  appears  to  be 
in  the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  do  not  by  any  means  imply 
the  authorship  of  the  narratives  that  contain  these  laws,  any  more 
than  the  reference  in  I.  Cor.  ix.  14  to  the  command  of  Jesus  in  Luke 
X.  7,  and  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  Jesus  (L  Cor.  xi.  23), 
imply  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  Gospels  containing  his  words 
{Bib.  Study,  p.  193). 


288  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Here,  again,  in  the  citations  from  Jesus,  he  bides  among 
a  number  of  sayings  of  tbe  Master,  wbicb,  taken  apart  from 
otbers,  are  not  siiecific  affirmations  of  tbe  autborsbip  in  ques- 
tion, one  tbat  is ;  viz. :  tbe  interrogation  in  Jobn  vii.  19,  "Did 
not  Moses  give  you  tbei  law,  and  yet  none  of  you  doetb  tbe  law  ?" 
Wby  did  not  tbe  professor  single  out  tJiis  passage,  as  bis  oppo- 
nents bave  done,  and  sbow  tbat  it  does  not  affirm  tbe  Mosaic 
autborsbip  of  tb©  Pentateiucb?  If  be  could  sbow  tbat  in  tbe 
minds  and  speech  of  tbe  Jews  addressed  by  Jesus  tberei  was  a 
distinction  between  tbe  "law"  and  wbat  we  call  tbe  Pentateucb, 
be  wo'uld  bave  met  tbe  argument  in  part.  But  even  then  be 
would  bave  bad  to  sbow  that  Christ  meant  not  tbe  law  as  a 
whole,  but  only  tbat  nucleus  of  the  law  which  critics  ascribe 
to  Moses,  as  distinguished  from  tbe  civil  law  in  Deuteronomy, 
and  the  Levitical  law,  botb  of  which,  as  be  bimseilf  affirms, 
were  given  by  unknoi^vn  persons  many  centuries  after  the  death 
of  Moses.  Even  what,  he  does  make  out  of  the  passage,  that 
Moses  gave  "the  law  in  general,"  contradicts  his  own  conclu- 
sions and  those  of  all  the  critics  with  whom  be  stands. 

There  is  another  anomaly  in  these  citations  from  Jesus. 
Because  Jesus  says,  in  Mark  vii.  10,  "Moses  said,  Honor  thy 
fatbeir  and  mother,"  the  professor  says  that  Jesus,  in  these 
words,  represents  Moses  as  giving  the  Ten  Commandments. 
Wliy  this  conclusion  ?  Wby  not  reason  as  be  does  about  other 
remarks  of  the  same  kind^  and  say.  This  does  not  represent 
Moses  as  giving  the  whole  of  tbe  Ten  Commandments,  "not 
by  any  means ;"  it  sbov^  only  that  be  gave  the  one  about  honor- 
ing father  and  mother.  Well,  it  suits  tbe  theory  to  admit  that 
Moses  gave  tbe  Decalogue,  and  so  tbe  mode  of  reasoning  which 
is  scientific  and  conclusive  in  analogous  cases  is  tossed  aside 
in  this. 

If  Heb.  vii.  14,  as  is  asserted  above,  represents  Moses  as 
giving  the  law  of  priesthood,  this  contradicts  tbe  accepted  crit- 
ical theory  of  tbe  priesthood;  for  it  is  claimed  that  there  was 
no  law  of  tbe  priesthood  till  long  after  Moses;  that  Ezekiel 
foreshadowed  it,  and  tbat  it  was  first  made  a  law  in  the  time  of 
Ezra,  or  a  short  time  previous.     The  passage  reads  thus:  "For 


THE    BOOK    OF   DEUTERONOMY.  289 

it  is  evident  tliat  our  Lord  liath  sprung  out  of  Judali;  as  to 
which  tribe  Mo-scs  spake  notJiing  concerning  priests."  The 
writer's  argument  assumes  that  if  Moses  spake  nothing  as 
respects  priesthood  in  a  certain  tribe,  then  a  man  of  that  tribe 
coadd  not  be  a  priest.  What  more  positive  implication  could 
we  have  that  the  law  of  the  priesthood  was  all  given  by  Moses, 
and  not  by  an  unkno'^\Ti  priestly  writer  (P)  a  thousand  years 
after  the  death  of  Moses  ? 

The  passage  cited  from  Heib.  x.  28  reads:  "A  man  that  hath 
set  at  nought  Closes'  law  dieth  without  compassion  on  the  word 
of  two  OT  three  witnesses."  This  shows  that  all  the  statutes 
with  the  death  penalty  attached  came  from  Moses.  But  thee© 
are  scattered  all  through  the  Pentateiuch,  intermingled  with  the 
others  too  closely  to  be  separated.  Immediately  afteo*  these 
citations  the  professor  inadvertently  gives  his  whole  cause  away, 
by  saying:  "These  passages  all  represent  Moses  to  be  the  law^ 
giver  that  he  appears  to  bei  in  the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch." 
But  in  the  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  Moses  is  re])resented  as 
receiving  from  God  and  giving  tO'  the  people  every  single  statute 
of  the  law,  both  civil  and  religious.  These  passages,  then, 
either  misrepresent  Moses,  or  the  critical  tJieory  of  the  origin 
of  the  law  is  false,  according  to  Professor  Briggs'  own  repre- 
sentation. 

But  the  professor,  not  perceiving  how  completely  he  had 
given  away  his  cause,  makes  tJie  argnment  that  while  these  pass^ 
ages  prov^e  Moses  to  be  the  laAvgiver  that  he  appears  to  be  in 
the  Pentateuch,  they  do  not.  imply  his  authorship  of  the  narra- 
tives that  contain  these  laws,  any  more  than  Paul's  allusions  to 
teachings  of  Christ  found  in  Luke's  Gospel  prove  that  Jesus 
wrote  this  Gospel.  The  conclusion  does  not  follow,  because  the 
cases  are  not  parallel.  The  author  of  this  Gospel  starts  out 
with  an  explicit  statement  of  his  reason  for  writing  in  which 
he  distinguishes  between  himself  and  Jesus.  Secondly,  no'  man 
among  those  to  whom  Paul  wrote  was  laboring  under  the  im- 
pression that  Jesus  wTote  that  Gospel,  but  all  the  readers  to 
whom  he  and  the  other  apostles  wrote  believed  that  Moses  wroite 
the  Irw,  and  they  necessarily  understood  allusions  to  its  author- 


290  THE    AUTHOR tiHIP    OF 

ship  accordingly.  Finally,  when  Paul  wrote  First  Corinthians, 
Luke's  Gospel  was  not  yet  in  existence,  and  it  is  absurd  to  speak 
of  Paul's  making  allusions  to  it.  It  was  written  several  years 
later,  and  some  of  tlie  professor's^  fellow  critics  place  it  ati  least 
twenty  years  later.  lie  knows  this  perfectly  well;  but  in  his 
eagerness  to  makci  a  point  he  ignored  it  and  committed,  this 
absurdity.  This  is  more  inexcusable  than  the  mistake  about 
Samuel. 

I  now  take  up  his  third  argument  on  these  testimonies. 
He  says: 

Jesus  represents  Moses  as  a  prophet  who  wrote  of  him  (John  v.  6); 
so  Philip  (John  i.  45) ;  Peter  (Acts  iii.  22-24)  ;  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  37) ; 
Paul  (Acts  xxvi.  22);  and  in  Rom.  x.  5-19  the  apostle  refers  to  the 
address  in  Deuteronomy  xxx.  and  the  song  in  Deuteronomy  xxxii. 
These  passages  maintain  that  certain  prophecies  came  from  Moses,  but 
do  not  maintain  that  the  Pentateuch,  as  a  whole,  or  the  narratives  in 
which  these  prophecies  occur,  were  written  by  Moses. 

Here,  again,  the  professor  takes  one  of  the  most  explicit 
of  the  testimonies  of  Jesus,  and,  instead  of  attempting,  in  a 
direct  'manner,  tO'  refute  the  argimient  that  is  based  upon  it, 
mixes  it  up  with  a  number  of  less  explicit  passages,  and  tosses 
them  all  aside  as  asci'ibing  only  certain  prophecies  to  Moses. 
The  passage  thus  treated  can  be  styled  a  mere  ascription  of  a 
certain  prophecy  to  Moses  only  by  ignoring  an  essential  part 
of  it.  It  reads  thus:  'Tor  if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would 
believe  me,  for  he  wrote  of  mei  But  if  ye  believe  not  his 
writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  ^vords?"  "His  writings!" 
What  were  meant  by  these?  What  writings  did  his  hearers 
necessarily  understand  him  to  mean  ?  Theire  is  no  answer  but 
one;  he  meant  those  writings  known  to  his  hearers  and  to  us 
as  tiie  writings  of  Moses.  He  meant  the  Pentateuch;  and  I 
venture  to  say  that  Professor  Briggs  can  not  squarely  face 
these  words  and  deny  it.  He  was  not  ignorant  of  these  words 
when  he  wi^ote  his  book;  why  did  he  not  face  them  squarely, 
and  show,  if  he  could,  that  they  have  a  meaning  consistent 
with  his  theory  ?  I  should  be  glad  to  see  him  or  some  of  his 
friends  undertake  the  task  even  now.     I  invite  them  to  it 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  291 

The  ti-ue  method  of  treating  all  the  sayings  of  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  on  this  subject  is  to  asoei-tain  from  soane  unambig- 
uous utterances  precisely  what  they  taught,  and  then  to  inter- 
pi-et  their  other  utterances  in  haraiony  with  these.  This  I 
have  endeavored  to  do;  and  by  this  process  it  is  made  clear 
that,  when  they  speak  of  any  law,  statute,  prediction,  or  other 
sayings  of  Moses,  they  contemplate  it  as  a  part  of  the  writing 
then  and  since  ascribed  to  Moses ;  i.  e.,  the  Pentateuch. 

Ten  years  later  than  the  publication  of  Biblical  Study, 
the  work  from  which  I  have  copied  Professor  Briggs'  argu- 
ments thus  far,  he  published  a  smaller  book  entitled  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  which  he  goes  over  the  same 
ground  again.  In  it  he  reproduces,  word  for  word,  the  three 
arguments  on  which  I  have  commented ;  but  he  has  some  addi- 
tional matter  to  which,  in  justice  to  him,  I  should  perhaps  pay 
attention. 

But  some  one  will  say,  Was  it  not  the  common  opinion  in  the  days 
of  our  Lord  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch?  We  answer  that,  so  far 
as  we  know,  it  was  the  common  opinion  that  David  wrote  the  Psalter. 
As  to  the  Pentateuch,  opinion  was  divided  whether  it  was  lost  when  the 
temple  was  destroyed  by  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  restored  or  recast 
by  Ezra  or  not  (p.  28). 

^Vhat  kind  of  reasoning  is  this  ?  He  answers  the  question 
whether  tlie  Jews  thought  that  Moses  ^vrote  tlie  Pentateuch 
by  stating  tliat,  ''so  far  as  we  know,  they  thought  that  David 
wrote  tlie  Psalter."  If  I  ^\'<ere  asked,  Has  it  not  been  the  com- 
mon opinion  that  Professor  Briggs  wrote  Biblical  Study,  and 
were  to  answer.  So  far  as  we  know,  it  was  once  the  common 
opinion  that  Shakespeare  -wrote  Mother  Goose's  Melodies,  the 
answer  would  be  equally  relevant.  "So  far  as  we  kno\^^'  h 
well  put  in.  It  means  that  we  know  nothing  about  it  But  we 
do  know  that  no  Jew  of  common  sense  who'  ever  read  the  Psal- 
ter could  have  thought  that  David  wrote  the  whole  of  it.  And 
we  do  know,  and  Professor  Briggs  knows  we  know,  tJiat  tJae 
Jerws  of  our  Lord's  Day  believed  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch.  Even  those  who  thought  that  the  law  was  lo^t 
for  a  time  and  then  restored  by  Ezra,  if  any  of  them  lived 
this  early,  believed  that  it  was  originally  written  by  Moees. 


292  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

Following  this  on  tlie  same  page,  the  professor  demands, 
^"Why  should  we  interpret  Jesus  and  his  apostles  by  the  opin- 
ions of  the  Jews  of  his  time?"  This  question  is  easily  an- 
swered. If  I  should  st«p  into  the  professor's  classroom  so^me 
day,  and  find  him  quoting  to  a  class  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, and  constantly  saying  with  every  quotation,  Paul  says 
this,  and  Paul  says  that,  I  might  demand  of  him,  "Professor, 
do  you  not  know  that  all  the  membeirs  of  this  class  have  fallein 
into  the  mistake  that  Paul  wrotei  this  epistle?  And  are  you 
not  confirming  them  in  this  fa,lse  opinion  by  quoting  it  as 
Paul's?"  I  suppose  he  would  turn  upon  'me  with  indignation, 
and  demand,  "Why  should  I  be  interpreted  by  the  opinions  of 
this  class?"  Were  I  bold  enough,  my  reply  would  be,  "Why 
are  you  deceiving  this  class  by  propagating  an  opinion  tliat 
you  hold  to  be  false?"  This  is  the  attitude  in  w^hich  his  argu- 
ment places  Jesus. 

He  says  on  the  same  page: 

If  we  should  say  that  Jesus  did  not  know  whether  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch  or  not,  we  would  not  go  beyond  his  own  saying  that  he 
knew  not  the  time  of  his  own  advent. 

This  is  as  much  as  to  say,  that  because  Jesus  says  of  him- 
self that  he  did  not  know  a  certain  thing,  we  may  say  of  him 
that  he  did  not  know  another  and  very  different  thing.  Be- 
cause Professoi'  Briggs  says  that  he  does  not  know  the  day  and 
hour  w^hen  he  will  die,  I  may  say  of  him  that  he  does  not 
know  who  his  grandmother  was.  I  rather  think  that  he  did 
not  know  anything  about,  logic  when  he  was  writing  this  sen- 
tence. All  that  he  ever  knew  of  logic,  like  jSTebuchadnezzar^s 
dream,  has  passed  from  him  for  the  time  being. 

One  more  quotation,  taken  from  page  29,  wall  bring  us  to 
the  end  of  the  professor's  strange  series  of  arguments,  or, 
rather,  of  stateiments: 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  any  one  should  say,  Jesus  must  have  known 
all  things,  and  he  ought  not  to  have  used  language  that  might  deceive 
men,  we  respond,  that  his  language  does  not  deceive  men.  Literary 
usage  in  all  ages  and  in  the  Bible  itself  shows  that  it  is  equally  truth 
and  good  language  for  the  critics  and  the  anti-critics.  The  question  is. 
Shall  we  interpret  the  language  of  Jesus  by  the  opinions  of  his  contem- 
poraries?    This  we  deny.     Jesus  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all  the 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTEROXOMY.  293 

errors  of  his  contemporaries.  He  did  not  correct  their  false  views  of 
science.  He  was  the  great  Physician,  but  he  did  not  teach  medicine. 
He  was  greater  than  Solomon,  and  yet  he  declined  to  decide  questions 
of  civil  law  and  politics.  He  never  rebuked  slavery.  Is  he  responsible 
for  slavery  on  that  account?  The  Southern  slaveholders  used  to  say  so. 
But  even  they  are  now  convinced  of  their  error. 

Let  us  take  up  tliis  string  of  assertious,  and  see  wliat  is 
in  them.  First,  "His  language  does  not  deceive  men."  True, 
if  Moses  "gave  tJie  law,"  and  if  tlie  books  of  the  Pentateucli 
were  "his  writings,"  as  Jesus  positively  affirms;  but>  false  if 
these  writings,  as  Professor  Briggs  teaches,  were  wi'itten  se\'- 
eral  centuries  after  Moses  died.  Second,  "Jesus  was  not 
obliged  to  correct  all  the  errors  of  his  contemporaries."  But 
nobody  ever  said  that  he  was.  We  only  say  that  he  did  not 
and  would  not  affirm  as  truths  any  of  their  ei-rors.  Third, 
"He  did  not  correct  any  of  their  false  views  of  science."  Of 
course  not;  but  if  he  had  affirmed  any  of  them,  as  he  affirmed 
their  vieiw  of  the  authoa-ship  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  should 
never  have  heard  the  last  of  it  from  the  lips  of  infidels;  and 
Professor  Briggs  would  have  been  unable  to  defend  him. 
Fourth,  "He  was  a  great  Physician,  but  he  did  not  teach  med- 
icine." True;  but  suppose  he  had  taught  the  false  medical 
notions  of  his  day,  what  would  all  of  our  M.  D.'s  of  the  pres- 
ent day  have  had  to  say  ?  Suppose  he  had  taught  what  some 
j>eople  now  call  Christian  Science!  Fifth,  "He  declined  to 
decide  questions  of  civil  law  and  jwlitics."  Yes;  but  suppose 
he  had  decided  them.  Suppose  he  had  decided  in  favor  of 
free  silver  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  1;  what  would  the  gold-bugs 
have  to  say  ?  And  W'hat  a  plank  his  decision  would  have  been 
in  the  Democratic  platfoimi !  Sixth,  "He  never  rebuked  sla- 
very. Is  he  responsible  for  slavery  on  that  account?"  Of 
course  not;  and  the  Southern  slaveholders  never  said  he  was. 
They  only  said  what  Professor  Briggs  says,  that  he  never  re^ 
buked  it.  But  supposei  he  had  said  that  slavery  was  right,  just 
as  he  said  that  Moses  gave  the  law ;  what,  then  ?  How  then 
could  Professor  Briggs  have  said  that  slavery  was  wrong?  And 
how  can  he  now  say  that  Moses  did  not  give  the  law  ?     He 


294  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

could  have  said  the  former  only  by  denying  the  authority  of 
Jesus,  and  this  is  the  only  way  in  which  he  can  say  the  lattei*. 
5.  Did  the  Apostles  Affirm  ?  We  have  seen,  in  the  preced- 
ing section,  that  Jesus  our  Lord  most  positively  and  explicitly 
affirmed  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  proof 
of  the  fact  that  Moses  was  its  authoT  we  need  to  go  no  further, 
for  with  believers  in  Christ  no  other  proof  can  make  stronger 
an  explicit  assertion  by  him.  But  lest,  in  the  mind  of  some 
reader,  the  eixplicitness  of  his  affirmations  has  not  been  made 
perfectly  clear,  we  proceed  to  show  how  his  apostles  expressed 
themselves,  and  to  show  in  this  way  both  what  they  were  led 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  say,  and  how  they  understood  the  utter- 
ances  on  this  subject  of  their  divine  Master.  I  am  aware  that 
with  some  persons  who  claim  to  attach  full  credit  to  the  utter- 
ances of  Christ,  the  testimony  on  such  a  question  given  by  th.e 
apostles  has  little  or  no  weight.  The  cry  "^'Back  to  Christ," 
which  has  been  of  late  shouted  so  vociferously,  is  by  some, 
whose  shout  is  the  loudest,  meant  not  only  for  the  disregard 
of  all  authority  this  side  of  the  Xew  Testament,  but  of  apos- 
tolic authority  as  well.  It  means  that  nothing  in  the  Xew 
Testaanent  is  to  be  regarded  by  them  as  authoritative  except 
the  personal  utterances  of  Jesus  himself.  It  means  that  even 
these  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  authority  until  the  reiixxrts 
of  them  in  our  Gospels  pass  through  the  crucible  of  "modern 
criticism,"  to  determine  whether  they  have  been  faithfully  de- 
livered. But  this  professed  exaltation  of  Christ  is  in  reality 
a  disparagement  of  him;  for  it  is  his  own  authority  which 
affirms  tiie  authority  of  his  apostles,  promising  them  infalli- 
ble guidance,  and  saying  to  them,  "He  that  receiveth  me  receiv- 
eth  him  that  sent  me."  On  this  point  I  am  glad  to  quote 
again  an  utterance  by  Professor  Briggs,  who  says :  "The  author- 
ity of  Jesus  Christ  to  all  who  know  him  to  be  their  divine  Sa- 
viour, outweighs  all  other  authority  whatever.  A  Christian 
man  must  follow  his  teachings  in  all  things  as  the  guide  into 
all  truth.  The  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  is  involved  in  that 
of  the  apostles."     iSTo  man  who  accepts  this  dictum  can  think 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTEROXOMY.  295 

of  making  tlie  distinction  of  whicli  we  speak ;  and  no  man  who 
credits  what  Jesus  says  about  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles, 
or  regards  what  they  say  of  their  own  inspiration  as  any- 
thing more  tlian  idle  boasting,  can  call  this  dictum  in  que&- 
tion.  We  proceed,  then,  to  cite  the  testimony  of  the  a^wstles 
with  full  confidence  that  it  will  be  implicitly  credited  by  all 
but  rationalists. 

The  apostle  Peter  shall  be  our  first  witness.  In  his  sec- 
ond recorded  sermon,  he  says:  ''Moses  indeed  said,  A  prophet 
shaill  the  Lord  Goxl  raise  up  unto  you  from  among  yo'Ur  breth- 
ren, like  unto  me ;  to  him  shall  ye  hearken  in  all  things  whatr- 
soever  he  shall  speak  unto  you.  And  it  shall  be,  that  evei-y 
soul,  which  shall  not  hearken  to  that  prophet,  shall  be  utterly 
destroyed  from  among  the  people."  This  is  a  free  extract 
from  Deuteronomy  (xviii.  15-19);  and  Peter  testifies  that  it 
was  spoken  by  Moses.  It  is  part  of  one  of  the  speeches 
ascribed  to  Moses  in  that  book.  It  is  conceded  that  Peter^s 
hearers  credited  the  whole  sj^eeeh  and  the  whole  Book  of  Deu- 
teronomy as  having  come  from  Moses;  and  as  Peter  uses  the 
passage  to  show  them  that  Moses  predicted  the  coming  of  Jesus, 
his  argimient  was  both  fallacioius  in  itself,  and  deceptive  to  his 
hearers,  if  the  book  had  any  other  origin.  ]^o  ingenuity  can 
set  aside  this  conclusion  or  destroy  the  force  of  it. 

Our  next  witness  is  the  apostle  John.  In  the  first  chap- 
ter of  his  Gospel,  after  setting  forth  the  pre-existence  and  the 
advent  of  Jesus,  and  quoting  a  brief  testimonial  from  John 
the  Baptist,  he  says:  ''The  law  was  given  by  Moses;  grace  and 
truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  Here  is  the  same  testimony 
given  by  Jesus  himself  in  a  slightly  different  form.  It  is  a 
positive  affirmation  that  the  law  was  given  by  Moses ;  and  the 
person  of  Moses  as  the  giver  of  the  law  is  put  in  antithesis 
wdth  the  person  of  Christ  as  the  bestower  of  grace  and  truth. 
ISTotiee,  further,  it  is  not  some  particular  law  or  statute  that 
is  spoken  of,  but  "the  law" — an  expression  which  always  in 
the  speech  of  the  Jews  meant  the  work  which  we  call  the  Pen- 
tateuch.     John,  then,  was  mistaken,  and  he  misleads  the  read- 


296  THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF 

ers  of  bis  Gospel,  wheithea'  Jews  or  Gentiles,  if  the  Peaitateiieh 
did  not  came  from  the  hand  of  Moses. 

The  testimony  of  Paul  is  equally  explicit.  I  shall  nse  only 
one  testimonial  from  him.  In  contrasting  the  righteousness 
of  the  law  with  that  ohtained  through,  faith  in  Christ,  he 
says:  ''Foa-  Moses  writeth  that  the  man  that  doeth  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  the  law  shall  live  thereby."  Here  Moses 
is  represented  as  the  writer ;  and  what  he  is  said  to  have  writ- 
ten is  not  some  particular  sentence ;  for  the  words  Paul  uses 
are  not  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  they  set  forth  the  sub- 
stance of  what  Moses  taught  in  reference  to  righteousness  and 
the  life  which  it  secures.  It  is,  then,  an  assertion  that  the 
law  in  general  was  written  by  Moses,  and,  in  arguing  thus  to 
Jewish  readers  whom  he  had  especially  in  mind,  Paul  must 
be  understood  as  using  the  term  in  the  sense  ascribed  to  it  by 
the  Jews.  It  is  an  assertioin  that  Moses  was  the  writer  of  the 
law,  as  explicit  as  the  assertion  by  John  that  Moses  gave  the 
law. 

The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  who-,  I  confi- 
dently believe,  after  having  studied  all  the  arguments  to  the 
contrary,  was  Paul,  makes  a  greater  number  of  assertions  of 
the  Mosaic  authorship  than  any  other  Xew  Testament  writer, 
and  with  those  who  believe  that  this  epistle  had  an  inspired 
source,  the  authority  of  its  author  is  not  inferior  to  that  of 
Peter  and  John.  But  if  any  question  can  be  settled  by  the 
authority  of  inspired  apostles,  this  one  is  already  settled  by  the 
statements  of  Peter,  John  and  Paul. 

§11.       CoNCLUSIOIf. 

In  drawing  this  discussion  to  a  close,  it  seems  proi>e'r  to 
state,  in  a  summary  form,  what  the  author  seems  to  himself 
to  have  accomplished. 

After  stating  in  the  introduction  the  position  of  tlie  par- 
ties to  the  discussion,  and  the  exact  issue  between  them,  we 
have  taken  up,  one  by  one,  all  of  the  evidences,  from  whatever 
source  derived,  which  have  been  relied  upon  by  the  friends  of 
the  analytical  theory  as  decisive  proof  of  the  late  date  which 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY.  297 

tliey  assign  to  the  Book  of  Deuteronoiiiy,  and  have  carefully 
considered  their  merits.  We  have  presented  these  evidences 
in  the  words  of  such  scholars  as  have  set  them  forth  in  their 
most  convincing  forms.  We  have  not  knowingly  failed  to  pre- 
sent the  argaiments  by  which  these  evidences  are  enfoi-ced,  in 
their  full  strength.  We  have  aimed  to  look  at  them  from  every 
point  of  view.  We  have  dealt  with  them  as  an  antagonist,  but 
not^  as  the  authoa-  knows  himself,  with  the  desire  or  the  will- 
ingness to  take  any  unfair  advantage  of  them.  The  subject  has 
been  on  the  author's  mind  as  a  subject  of  serious  thought,  and 
during  long  periods  a  subject  of  absorbing  thought,  for  moa-e 
than  forty  years.  Nothing  of  special  importance  that  has  been 
written  on  either  side  in  that  time  has  escaped  his  notice.  He 
considers  himself,  therefore,  competent  to  express  a  judginent 
on  the  course  of  the  argumentation,  and  he  can  not  feel  that 
he  is  egotistic  in  expressing  the  conviction  that  he  has  refuted 
in  Part  First  of  this  work  all  of  the  arguments  supposed  to 
be  decisive  in  support  of  the  so-called  critical  theory  of  Demte- 
ronomy.  That  the  final  decision  of  believing  scholars  will  be 
against  that  theory  he  can  not  doubt. 

On  the  other  hand,  while  the  array  of  evidence  in  proof 
of  the  Mosaic  authorship  which  has  been  presented,  is  not  ex- 
haustive, the  author  feels  thoroughly  convinced  of  its  conclu- 
siveness ;  and  he  will  hereafter,  as  heretofore,  implicitly  tnist 
the  representation  which  the  book  makes  of  itself,  and  which 
is  made  of  it  by  our  Lord  and  his  inspired  apostles.  I  can 
afford  to  believe  what-  the  apostles  believed,  Avhat  Jesus  be- 
lieved, and  be  satisfied.  Humbly  trusting  that  this  product  of 
my  profoundest  study  and  my  maturest  years  may  be-  blessed 
of  God  to  help  my  readers  into  the  same  satisfaction,  I  now, 
with  a  sigh  of  relief  from  a  severe  and  long-continued  mental 
strain,  commit  my  work  to  the  fate  w^hicli  the  Disposer  of  all 
things  has  prepared  for  it. 


INDEX. 


A. 

Ahaz,  his  heathen  altar,  163. 

Altar  of  the  two  and  a  half  tribes,  220. 

Altar  at  Mt.  Ebal,  225. 

Amalek.  the  decree  against,  202. 

Ammon,  Moab  and  Edom,  204. 

Amos,  his  relation  to  calf-worship,  171, 
253. 

Antiquarian  notes  in  Deuteronomy, 
114. 

Apostles,  did  they  aflBrm  the  Mosaic 
authorship?  294;  did  Peter?  295; 
did  John?  295;  did  Paul?  296. 

Assertions  of  authorship  in  Deuteron- 
omy, 195,  197,  198. 

"At  that  time,"  argument  from,  112. 

Authority  of  Christ  on  the  subject,  265. 

B. 

"Beyond    Jordan,"    argument    from, 

106. 
Blessing  and  cursing,  125. 
Blessings  of  the  tribes,  132. 
Bochim,  sacrifice  at,  35,  141 ;  a  back 

reference  to  Exodus,  Leviticus   and 

Deuteronomy,  229. 
Book  of   the  covenant,   its  altar  and 

sacrifice,  185. 
Briggs,  Prof.,  on  Samson,  231. 

c. 

Canaanites,  decree  of  extermination, 
203,  219. 

Children  of  murderers  spared,  252. 

Chronicles  set  aside,  138. 

Cities  of  refuge,  97,  227, 

Claim  of  authorship  in  the  title,  195. 

Contradictions  as  to  financial  condition 
of  the  Levites,  55;  as  to  tithes,  63; 
as  to  the  peace-offerings,  67;  as  to 
the  Passover  sacrifices,  68;  as  to 
the  flesh  of  animals  not  slaughtered, 
69;  as  to  Hebrew  bondservants,  71 ; 
as  to  the  Decalogue,  78;  as  to  move- 
ments of  Moses  at  Mt.  Sinai,  83; 
as  to  the  time  of  making  the  ark, 


85 ;  as  to  the  mission  of  the  spies. 
88;  as  to  the  sojourn  at  Kadesh,  91 ; 
as  to  the  consecration  of  the  Le- 
vites, 94;  as  to  the  cities  of  refuge, 
97;  as  to  the  year  of  release,  99;  as 
to  eating  firstlings  and  tithes,  KH); 
as  to  the  wilderness  itinerary,  104. 
Criticism,  proper  method  of,  iv. 

D. 

Date  of  Deuteronomy,  vii. 

David,   did  he  officiate  as  a  priest? 

152 ;  priesthood  of  his  sons,  153. 
Deborah's  forty  thousand,  233,  7wte. 
Decalogue,  its  forms,  78. 
Deuteronomy,  the  key  of  the  critical 

arch,  xix. 
Deuteronomy  a  "  reformulation  of  old 

laws,"  214. 
Dishonest  motives  on  part  of  D,  215 
Documents  J  and  E,  viii. 
Document  H,  x. 
Document  P,  x. 

Documents  distinguished,  how,  xi. 
Doom  of  the  Gibeonites,  226,  233,  note. 

E. 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  169. 
Elkanah's  feast,  145. 
Ezra's  book  our  Pentateuch,  189. 

F. 

False  prophets  abounding,  133. 
Foreign  guards  in  the  temple,  160. 
Fraud,  the  question  of,  209;  the  charge 
admitted,  210 ;  the  charge  denied,  212. 

G. 
Gideon's  altar,  36,  142 ;  his  ephod.  235. 

H. 
Hexateuch,  xiv. 

High  places,  in  Judah,  46;  in  Israel, 
47,  155:  Solomon's  relation  to,  1.^6, 
165;  their  condemnation,  248,  260. 
Hosea,  his  relation  to  calf-worship, 
175 :  his  knowledge  of  the  law,  176 ; 
his  10.000  precepts,  180. 

299 


SCO 


INDEX. 


Hilkiah's  book,  was  it  the  Penta- 
teuch, or  only  Deuteronomy?  1, 
4-16;  when  written,  17-34;  how  its 
reception  accounted  for,  24-38. 

Historicity  of  Pentateuch,  xii,  xiv. 

Host  of  heaven,  when  woi'shiped,  131. 

I. 

Infidel  sources  of  analytical  theory  of 

Pentateuch,  xvi. 
Infidel  tendency  of  analytical  theory, 

xvii ;  its  effect  in  Germany,  xviii. 
Indirect  testimony  as   to  authorship 

of  Deuteronomy,  200. 
Inspiration  of  Deuteronomy,  216. 
Isaiah's  philippic,  180. 
Isaiah's  knowledge  of  Deuteronomy, 

2.56,   259;    of    the    other    law-books, 

258,  261,  262. 

J. 
Jehovah's  charge  to  Joshua,  218. 
Jephthah's  vow,  142. 
Jeremiah  on  sacrifices,  184. 
Jericho,  its  property  "  devoted,"  233. 
Jesus,  his  authority  in  criticism,  264, 

365;    did  he  know  the  facts?    266; 

bearing  of  the  Kenosis,  267 ;  bearing 

of    his   ignorance  of    the    day  and 

hour,  268 ;  did  he  afflrm  the  Mosaic 

authorship?     269,    277,    285;    Prof. 

Briggs  on  this  issue,  370,  376;  Prof. 

Driver  on  the  same,   273,  274,  281 ; 

Prof.  Cheyne  on  the  same,  274. 
Joshua,  Book  of,  set  aside,  137,  238. 
Jubile,  release  from  bondage,  76. 
Judges,  Book  of,  Levitically  false,  141, 

143. 

K. 

Kadesh  of  Napthali,  alleged  sanctu- 
ary at,  142. 
Kadesh-Barnea,  sojourn  of  Israel  at,  91. 

L. 

Landmarks,  134. 

Law  of  the  kingdom,  115,  157. 

Law  of  evidence  as  to  authorship,  195. 

Levitical  cities,  228 

Levitical  law  known  to  Amos,  254. 

Levitical  law  known  to  Hosea,  255. 


Peace-offerings,  232. 

Pillar  to  Jehovah  in  Egypt,  20. 

Plan  of  the    bcok,  xx. 


Predictions  in  Deuteronomy,  205. 
"Priests  and  Levites,"  49. 
Priests  disqualified  by  Josiah,  53. 
Priesthood  in  book  of  the  covenant,  53. 
Proper  method  of  criticism,  iv. 
Prophetic  teaching  of  Deuteronomy, 

122. 
Prophets,  the  early,  and  sacrifice,  169. 

R. 

Ryle's  canon  of  Old  Testament,  1. 

s. 

Samuel's  offerings,  38;  was  he  a 
priest  ?  150. 

Saul's  offering  at  Gilgal,  38,  152. 

Shechem,  sanctuary  at,  37. 

Shiloh,  ritual  at,  144,  147,  150,  236,  242. 

Single  sanctuary,  was  it  an  innova- 
tion? 29-34. 

Solomon,  his  worship  at  high  places, 
155;  his  new  shrines,  156;  his  pil- 
lars, 158;  did  he  officiate  at  the 
altar?  158;  his  temple  ritual,  159; 
his  deposition  of  Abiathar,  164 ;  his 
forbidden  marriages,  164. 

Song  of  Moses,  137. 

Speeches  in  historical  books,  318. 

Spies,  the  mission  of,  88. 

Style  of  Deuteronomy,  121,  190. 

Supreme  tribunal,  when  instituted, 
119. 

T. 

Tabernacle,  its  location  at  Nob,  44; 
its  location  at  Gibeon,  44;  was  it 
the  structure  at  Shiloh?  148,  150, 
151,  236;  its  contents,  237;  its  ex- 
istence denied,  2.39. 

Tabernacles,  feast  of,  140,  146. 

Temple,  Solomon's,  to  supersede  the 
tabernacle,  244;  its  service  exclu- 
sive, 247. 

Testimony,  the,  given  to  Joash,  251. 

Titles  of  parties  in  criticism,  vi. 

Torah,  the;  what  it  was,  178,  254,  258. 

W. 
"When  we  came  forth  out  of  Egypt," 

argument  from,  114. 
Worship  restricted  to  Jerusalem,  254. 
Writing  Deuteronomy,  198. 


Zadok,  his  ancestry,  164. 


SCRIPTURE  REFERENCES. 


Page. 
Chapter  ix.  16 258 


xxi.  13 

xxxi.  40,  41,  53. 

xxxiii.  18-22 

XXXV.  14,  20 

xxxviii.  1-30.. . 
xlv.  5  8 


EXODUS. 

Chapter  iv.   10  

xii.  1-8;  xii.  6,  18 69, 

xiii.  5,  11 

xvi.  1-8 

xvii.  8-16 

xviii.  1 

xix  22,24 54, 

xx.-xxiii. . .  viii,  xiii,  7,  15, 
16,  27,  49, 

XX.  23 

XX.  24,  25 

xxi.  4  

xxi.  7 

xxii.  37 

xxiii.  19 

xxiii.    27,  33 

xxiii   32 

xxiv.  1-10 

xxiv.  18  

XXV.  10,  21 

XXV.  22 

XXV.  22,  30,  37 

xxvii.  1-8 

xxvii.  20 

xxix.  28 

XXX.  7-9,  17-21 

xxxii.  7-9 

xxxii.  31,  19 

xxxiii.  7-23 

xxxiv.   1,  2 

xxxiv.  1-4 

xxxiv.  11-16 

xxxiv.  22   

xxxiv.  26 

xxxvii.  1 

xl.  17-21 


23 
23 
23 
23 
137 
187 


122 
241 
201 
241 
203 
54 
84 

169 
53 

185 

76 

74 

69 

236 

220 

229 

viii 

86 

86 

238 

246 

32 

246 

232 

246 

84 

85 

86 

85 

86 

164 

145 

237 

86 

86 


LEVITICDS. 


Chapter  ii.  11 . 


Page. 
255 

,.  232 

..  183 

..  183 

,.  233 

..  256 

..  255 

.  201 

..  70 

,.  258 

..  258 

..  13 


111 

iv.  27 

vi.  7 

vii 

vii.  9,  10 

vii.  13 

xiv.  34 

xvii.  15.  16 

xix.  31 

XX.  6,  27 

XX.  27 

xxiii.  8.. .         69 

xxiii.  10 201 

XXV.  2 201 

XXV.  32,  33 59 

XXV.  44 229 

XXV.  44--16 7& 

xxvi 10 

xxvi.  30 249,  250 

xxvii.  28,  29 224r 

xxvii.  30-33 63 

NUMBERS. 

Chapter  vi 230 

X.  5-8 95 

xi.  18-22 174- 

xii.  1 88 

xii.  16 93 

xiii.  20 93 

XV.  1^1 92.  256 

XV.  2,  18 201 

xvi.  40,  41,  50 201 

xvii.  1-13 201 

xviii.  1-32 201 

xix.  16 248 

XX.  1,  22 04,  95 

xxii.  1 107 

XXV.  30 30 

xxviii 256 

xxix 256 

xxxi.  25-^7 68 

xxxii.  19 107 

xxxii.  38-40 94 

xxxiii 93 

SOI 


302 


SCRIP  T URE    REFERENCES 


Page. 

Chapter  xxxiii.  19 100 

xxxiii.  31-33 104 

xxxiii.  38 94 

xxxiii.  38-44 93 

xxxiii.  50-56 220 

xxxiii.  51 201 

xxxiv.  2 201 

xxxiv.  15 107 

XXXV.  1-8 227,  228 

XXXV.  10 201 

xxxvi.  13 218 


..93, 

.107, 


.84, 


DEUTERONOMY. 

Chapter  i.  1 

i.  1,  2 

i.  22,  23,36,38.... 

i.  37,  38 

i,  46-ii.  1 

iii.  8 

iv.  8,  9 

iv.  16 

iv.  41-43 

iv.  44-49 

iv.  45 

v.  2,  3 

vi.  1,  10,  18 

vii.  1 

vii.  1-3 

vii.  2  

viii.  1 

ix.  1 

ix.  17 , 

X.  6,  7 

X.  11 

X.  12,  13 

xi.  29 200, 

xi.  30 

xii.  5,  6 102, 

xii.  10 

xii.  12 

xii.  18 

xii.  19 

xiii.  12-18 

xiv.  21 

xiv.  22,  23 

xiv.  27 

xiv.  29 

XV.  17 

XV.  19  

xvi.  8 

xvi.  11,  14 

xvi.  18-20 

xvi.  22 


195 

196 

88 

95 

94 

110 

62 

253 

227 

197 

5 

187 

200 

200 

164 

229 

200 

200 

85 

104 

200 

183 

225 

107 

186 

200 

58 

58 

58 

221 

70 

64 

58 

70 

74 

103 

12 

58 

73 

21 


Page 

Chapter  xvii.  4 200 

xvii.  14-20 115 

xvii.  18 58 

xvii.  18,  19 251 

xvii.  18-20 15 

xviii.  1 58 

xviii,  3 67 

xviii.  6-8 59 

xviii.  9 200 

xviii.  10-12,  14-17 257 

xviii.  11 258 

xviii.  15-19 255 

xix.   1-13 98,  227 

xix.-4 200 

xix.  14 124 

XX.  16-18 204,  220 

XX.  16, 17 224 

xxi.  10-14 165 

xxi.  11 200 

xxii.  3-7 204 

xxiii.  18 237 

XXV.  8 58 

XXV.  16 15 

XXV.  19,  17-19 200,  204 

xxvi.  11-13 58 

xxvi 5 

XX vii.  1-26,  1-14 Ilt7,  228 

xxvii.  14,  9 58 

xxviii 298 

xxviii.  1 200 

xxviii.  36 205 

xxviii.  37 9 

xxviii.  49-51,  53 126,  207 

xxviii.  63-68 208 

xxix 198 

xxix.  1-13 6 

xxix.  24 

XXX 

XXX.  1-5 

XXX.,  xxxii 

xxxi 

xxxi.  3,  13,  20 200 

xxxi.  19,  20,  22 127 

xxxi  24-26 3 

xxxii.  40 96 

xxxii.  44 128 

xxxiv 199 

JOSHUA. 

Chapter  i.  7,  8 278 

"        i.  8 15 

"        iii.  3 50 

"        V.  1 107 


9 
198 
208 
290 
198 


SCRIPTURE    REFERENCES. 


303 


Page. 

Chapter  vi.  17,  IS 233 

viii.  1-8 225 

viii  30-35 225 

ix   23,27 225 

"        xviii.   1 '^3 

"         xxi.  1-3 228 

"        xxii 220-223 

xxiii.l3 229 

JUDGES. 

Chapter  ii.  1-3  229 

-        ii.  1-5 35 

vii.  25 157 

••        viii.  27 235 

xlii.  5,7 255 

xiii.  15-20 35 

xvi.l,  7 255 

"        xvii 53 

"        xvii 233 

"        xviii 52 

"        xviii.  30 234 

XX.  26,27 232 

XX.  26-28 237 

"        xxi.  4 232 

.  "        xxi.  21 145 

"        xxi.  24 147 

I.    SAMUEL. 

Chapter  i.  3 40,  159 

"        i.7,8 236 

i.  20,  21 145 

"        ii.  15,22,  24 236 

"        ii.  17 40 

"        ii.  18 235 

ii.  22 239,241 

iii.3 236 

."        iii.  20 42 

«'        iv.  4 238 

"        vi.  20-23 153 

"        vii.  1 151 

vii.  3-9 42 

"        vii.  20 42 

"        viii.  6-8 119 

viii.  8 152 

"        viii.  18 155 

"        X.  25 252 

xii.  25. 151 

"        xiii.  6-12 119 

"        xiii.  9-14 38 

"        xiii.  15,  16 142 

xiv.  1-8,  18,  19 152 

"        xiv.  3 44 

"        xiv.  4 no 


Page 

Chapter  xiv.  35 38 

xxi.  1-9 44 

'•        xxi.  3-6 238 

"        xxii.  18-23 44 

"        xxii.   19 44 

II.    SAMUEL. 

Chapter  vi.  14 235 

vi.  20-23 153 

vii.  1-13 224 

viii.  18 155 

XV.  12,  32 33 

I.    KINGS. 

Chapter  ii.  3 15 

ii.  26 164 

"        V.  ,3-5 244 

"        vi.   1 245 

"        viii.  1-4,  64 245 

xi.  1,  2 160 

"        xi.  7 247 

"        xii.  26,29,  51 247 

xii.  33 248 

xiii.  2 248 

xiv.  28 160 

xvi.  30,  31 170 

•'        xxii.  1-6,  16 viii 


II.  KINGS. 

Chapter  xi.   12 

xii.  2,  3 

"        xii.  16 

"        xii.  20,  21 

"        xiv.  5,  6 


251 

166 

163 

252 

253 

xiv.  6 15 

"        xiv.  24 108 

XV.  3 121 

"        xviii.  1-5 168 

"        xviii.  3-6,  22 249 

xviii.  6 18 

"        xxiii.  2 6 

•'        xxiii.  25 7 

I.  CHEONICLB3. 

Chapter  vi.  1-12 164 

XV.  11,  12 153 

xvi.  37-42 ;     45 

xviii.  17 155 

II.   CHRONICLES. 

Chapter  v.  5 50 

xi.  13,  14 58 

"        xi.  13-16 48 

xix.  11 120 


304 


SCRIPTURE    REFERENCES. 


Chapter  xxiu.  18 

XXX.  27 

xxxiv.  3 

EZRA. 

Chapter  viii.  36 

NBHEMIA.H. 

Chapter  viii- ,  ix 

PSALMS. 


Chapter  xvi. 
"        ex. . 


Ohapter  i.  10-15. 
ii.  6-8.. 


Page. 

.     50 

..     50 

..      3 


viii.  19,20 

ix.  7 

xvii.  7,  8 

xxiv.  5,  6 

xxiv.l3 261 

260 


208 

139 

274 
272 

185 
256 
257 

263 
259 

258 


118 
118 
261 
263 
262 
262 
263 

44 

261 

186 
186 
187 


"       xxvu.  y 

"        xxxi.  3 

"        xxxvi.  9 

xl.  16 

"        xl.-xlviii 

xlii.  21,  24 

"        xliii.  22-24 

"        Ixvi.  3 

JEREMIAH. 

Chapter  vii.  12-14 

"  viii.  8 

"  xi.  1,  4 

"  xiv.  11,  12 

"  xvii.  24-26 

"  xxxiv.  8-22 "^3 

"  xxxvi.  6-9 4* 

HOSEA. 

•Chapter  iv.  6 127 

"        vi.6 127 

"        viii.  11,12 127,  261 

AMOS. 

Chapter  i.  2 ' 253 

"        ii.  4 253 

"        ii.  11,  12 255 

"        iii.  13,  14 172 

"        iv.  4,  5 172 

"        iv.  5 255 

"        V.  4-6 172 

«        V.  22 256 


Cliapter  vi.  6-8. 


Page. 

. .  182 


Chapter  ix.  18 177 

x.  34 188 

xii.  7 177 

261 

270 

287 


XV.  1-9.. 
xix.  3-9. 
xix.  7. . . 


xxu. 


41-46 273 


MARK. 

Chapter  i.  44 287 

"        vii.  10 388 

"        xii.  26 275,285 

"        xii.  35-37 273 


LUKE. 

Chapter  xx.  41-44 


273 


JOHN. 

Chapter  i.  17 295 

"        1.45 290 

"        iii.  34 267 

V.  6 290 

vi.  70 278 

vii.  13 378,  287,  288 

vii.  23  285 

"        viii.  56,  58 268 

xvii.  4,  5 268 

ACTS. 

Chapter  iii.  22-24 290 

"        iii.  22,  23 295 

vii.  37 290 

"        xxvi.  22 290 


ROMANS. 


Chapter  x.  5 

X.  5-19, 


296 
290 


I.  CORINTHIANS. 

Chapter  i.  13 278 

"        ii.  10 268 

"        ix.  14 289 

"        xi.23 289 

HEBREWS. 

Cliapter  vii.  14 287,  288 

"        X.  28 289 


DATE  DUE 

:-mv    n^^ 

^' 

**iil^ 

nm0^; 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S    A. 

DATE  DUE 

^'"  ^ 

CAYLORO 

PRINTEOINU.S.A. 

BS1275.4.IVI14 

The  authorship  of  the  book  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00012  2673 


